OBJECTIVES: At the 2001 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS (UNGASS), Member States agreed to regularly review progress made in national responses to HIV. This article provides (1) a brief overview of how the resultant global UNGASS reporting system was developed; (2) the origins, background, limitations and potential of that system; (3) an overview of the articles in this supplement; and (4) crosscutting institutional and methodological issues. METHODS: United Nations Member States biennially provide The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) with data on 25 core indicators of national responses to HIV, collected in Country Progress Reports. This article critically reviews and interprets these data in light of international political considerations and overall data needs. RESULTS: There has been a considerable improvement in response rates, accompanied by an increase in data quality and completeness. Both nationally and internationally, the UNGASS process is viewed as being more substantial and important than a reporting exercise to the United Nations General Assembly. The process has catalyzed the development of national monitoring systems and has created opportunities for civil society to monitor and challenge government commitments and deeds. CONCLUSIONS: Although the UNGASS global reporting system now comprises an unequaled wealth of data on HIV responses, collected from a broad range of countries, it cannot yet answer several critical questions about the progress and effectiveness of those responses. Evaluation studies that go beyond indicator monitoring are needed, but they will take time to design, fund, implement and interpret. In the meantime, this global monitoring system provides a good indication of the overall progress in the global response to HIV and whether Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 6 (to halt and reverse the HIV epidemic) is likely to be reached by 2015.
OBJECTIVES: At the 2001 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS (UNGASS), Member States agreed to regularly review progress made in national responses to HIV. This article provides (1) a brief overview of how the resultant global UNGASS reporting system was developed; (2) the origins, background, limitations and potential of that system; (3) an overview of the articles in this supplement; and (4) crosscutting institutional and methodological issues. METHODS: United Nations Member States biennially provide The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) with data on 25 core indicators of national responses to HIV, collected in Country Progress Reports. This article critically reviews and interprets these data in light of international political considerations and overall data needs. RESULTS: There has been a considerable improvement in response rates, accompanied by an increase in data quality and completeness. Both nationally and internationally, the UNGASS process is viewed as being more substantial and important than a reporting exercise to the United Nations General Assembly. The process has catalyzed the development of national monitoring systems and has created opportunities for civil society to monitor and challenge government commitments and deeds. CONCLUSIONS: Although the UNGASS global reporting system now comprises an unequaled wealth of data on HIV responses, collected from a broad range of countries, it cannot yet answer several critical questions about the progress and effectiveness of those responses. Evaluation studies that go beyond indicator monitoring are needed, but they will take time to design, fund, implement and interpret. In the meantime, this global monitoring system provides a good indication of the overall progress in the global response to HIV and whether Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 6 (to halt and reverse the HIV epidemic) is likely to be reached by 2015.
Authors: W Mphatswe; K S Mate; B Bennett; H Ngidi; J Reddy; P M Barker; N Rollins Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2011-12-05 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Karen S Korsholm; Ingrid Karlsson; Sheila T Tang; Lea Brandt; Else Marie Agger; Claus Aagaard; Peter Andersen; Anders Fomsgaard Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-05-17 Impact factor: 3.240