Facilitators and barriers to community-led monitoring of health programs: Qualitative evidence from the global implementation landscape.

Achieving the global HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria targets will require innovative strategies to deliver high quality and person-centered health services. Community-led monitoring (CLM) is a rapidly proliferating health systems strengthening intervention for improving healthcare services and documenting human rights violations, through social empowerment and political accountability. Driven in part by increasing financial support from donors, a growing number of countries are implementing CLM programs. This study aimed to identify early challenges and lessons learned from CLM implementation, with the aim of informing and improving the implementation of CLM programs and ultimately achieving greater impact on the delivery of services. Twenty-five CLM implementors representing 21 countries participated in an interview. Early generation of buy-in from diverse stakeholders was noted as critical for CLM success. Leveraging existing networks of service users and community organizations to implement CLM also helped to maximize program reach and resources. Uncertainty around CLM's purpose and roles among CLM stakeholders resulted in challenges to community leadership and ownership of programs. Respondents also described challenges with underfunded programs, especially advocacy components, and inflexible donor funding mechanisms. Critical capacity gaps remain around advocacy and electronic data collection and use. With the rapid expansion of CLM, this study serves as an important first step in characterizing challenges and successes in the CLM landscape. Successful implementation of CLM requires prioritizing community ownership and leadership, donor commitment to sustainable and reliable funding, and strengthened support of programs across the data collection and advocacy lifecycle.

Civil society demand for accountability to achieve the 90-90-90 targets: lessons from Eastern and Southern Africa.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Civil society demand for accountability has long been a critical component of the AIDS response. In the age of 90-90-90 HIV treatment goals, civil society advocacy has continued, but often in new forms. In particular, civil society accountability at the intersection of national policy and global health financing has taken on increasing importance, but has not been well documented. RECENT FINDINGS: Civil society demand for accountability is a key to addressing both the insufficient progress toward '90-90-90' HIV treatment goals and the gap in democracy in HIV policymaking particularly prevalent in the context of internationally financed HIV programming. Civil society can serve three vital functions for accountability: unlocking decision-making processes monopolized by powerful funders through North-South networks; challenging dominant ideas that justify status-quo policies; and 'venue shifting' to institutionalize new, more open spaces for policymaking. SUMMARY: The functions of civil society demand for accountability have played key roles in improving the AIDS response in several countries in East and Southern Africa. Dramatically scaling-up capacity for civil society advocacy is necessary in the near term to achieve global HIV goals.

Evolving Human Rights and the Science of Antiretroviral Medicine.

Recent years have seen significant advances in the science of using antiretroviral medicines (ARVs) to fight HIV. Where not long ago ARVs were used late in disease to prevent sick people from dying, today people living with HIV can use ARVs to achieve viral suppression early in the course of disease. This article reviews the mounting new scientific evidence of major clinical and prevention ARV benefits. This has changed the logic of the AIDS response, eliminating competition between "treatment" and "prevention" and encouraging early initiation of treatment for individual and public health benefit. These breakthroughs have implications for the health-related human rights duties of States. With medical advance, the "highest attainable standard" of health has taken a leap, and with it the rights obligations of States. We argue that access to early treatment for all is now a core State obligation and restricting access to, or failing to provide accurate information about, it violates both individual and collective rights. In a context of real political and technical challenges, however, in this article we review the policy implications of evolving human rights obligations given the new science. National and international legal standards require action on budget, health and intellectual property policy, which we outline.