This Community is Archived.

This community is no longer active as of December 2018. Thanks to those who posted here and made this information available to others visiting the site.

Measuring Impact of HIV prevention interventions : Is there need to change prevalence for incidence for a more accurate evaluation of program performance?

By Moses Modi | 20 Aug, 2012

Most organizations heavily involved in HIV/AIDS interventions have over the years used a distinct monitoring and evaluation framework as a management tool for measuring performance of prevention programs. Prevalence is determined by various factors; most specifically for chronic diseases defined by WHO as diseases with long duration but generally slow progression is a complex of factors that include environmental issues, nutrition, socio-economic dynamics, other prevention interventions as well as access and availability of life prolonging drugs. The HIV/AIDS prevention interventions referred to as the minimum package of services including counseling and testing, voluntary medical male circumcision, promotion of correct and consistent condom use, reduction of the number and frequency of sexual partnerships remain crucial in bringing down the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
A more accurate measure of the performance of this set of interventions is incidence rather than prevalence since prevalence is confounded by the factors alluded to earlier in this text. In the presence of life prolonging drugs (ARVs), prevalence can remain high due to a longer survival period (characteristic of a chronic disease) of an infected population. Unless we do a regression analysis of the confounding factors or otherwise use a more accurate measure I regard as incidence of new infections.

Replies

 

gabriel olenje Replied at 2:46 PM, 20 Aug 2012

Mr modi,
You are very right,this is practical from my on experience as an infected person living proof,it must be carefully understood that the arvs and research such as pmtct as clear confidence in very many that one is not infected,TRUST this, mr modi is right from the practical sense that stigma is the game and pmtct works with arvs and dont forget the Pre prophylactic treatment as new inventions in the AIDS scene.therefore the measurement is best the modi way.

Adebayo Akinmoladun Replied at 4:01 PM, 20 Aug 2012

I am of the opinion that the two need to be taken into consideration (incidence and prevalence) because the new infection being detected may not have occurred during the study. A man who was infected in 2004 may not be captured until 2010, so how reliable will be the Study if the process cannot capture nearly accurately the real infected population under the study period.
Thanks.

Sent from my iPhone4

This Community is Archived.

This community is no longer active as of December 2018. Thanks to those who posted here and made this information available to others visiting the site.