| Literature DB >> 22815654 |
Joseph D Tucker1, Kevin A Fenton, Robert Peckham, Rosanna W Peeling.
Abstract
Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22815654 PMCID: PMC3398968 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001266
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Med ISSN: 1549-1277 Impact factor: 11.069
Overview of the dominant current sexual health delivery system and the SESH delivery system.
| Variable | Dominant Sexual Health Delivery Approach | SESH |
| Relationship to MARPs and CBOs | Limited engagement with CBOs serving MARPs | Authentic collaboration with formal steering input from CBO representatives |
| Time horizon | Short-term (e.g., 6–12 months) projects to promote MARP uptake | Middle- to long-term sustainable systems for ensuring MARP uptake |
| Financing | Mainly public funds | Public, private, public–private, and private–private investment structures |
| Implementation | Unisectoral, with vertical organizational links (national/state/local public health) | Multisectoral, with horizontal organizational links (academia, business, technology, etc.) |
| Clinical services | Formal, centralized clinic-based services | Decentralized CBOs, drop-in clinics, and mobile services in addition to clinic-based services |
| Substantive focus | HIV/STD-specific programs | Holistic sexual health focus |
| Comparative advantages | Organizational systems intact and widely used | Potential for innovative programs and sustainability |
| Comparative weaknesses | Sustaining local financing can be challenging, especially for stigmatized MARPs | Potential for miscommunication and poor governance to slow implementation |
The current sexual health delivery approach as exemplified by a public-sector STD service.
CBO, community-based organization; MARP, most-at-risk population.
Key partners in a multisectoral SESH program.
| Local Partner | Potential Contribution | Limitations |
|
| -Identify high-risk groups, venues | -Lack of trust among vulnerable groups in some local contexts |
| -May coordinate the multisectoral response in many contexts | -Often have limited interactions with other sectors in sexual health programming | |
| -Capacity to coordinate with other government agencies to form a response | ||
| -Potential for influencing policy | ||
|
| -Provide consultation on social marketing, microfinance | -Many local organizations have limited human personnel to implement business programs |
| -Advise on strategic planning and market analysis for point-of-care tests | -Double bottom line initiatives are often markedly different from traditional business practice | |
| -May coordinate the multisectoral response in some contexts | ||
|
| -Provide point-of-care test monitoring and evaluation | -Broader social context of technology and its use are frequently overlooked |
| -Recommendations on using specific point-of-care tests | ||
|
| -Adopt sexual health programs into popular, ongoing social change programs | -May be challenging to incorporate in some regions |
|
| -Conduct research and evaluate whether programs are effective | -Lack of trust among vulnerable groups in some local contexts |
| -May coordinate the multisectoral response in some contexts | -Often have limited interactions with other sectors in sexual health programming | |
|
| -Provide high-quality preventive and therapeutic clinical services | -Often have limited interactions with other sectors in sexual health programming |
| -Link and retain most-at-risk populations within traditional clinical services | ||
|
| -Assist with the formation and development of formal and informal non-governmental organizations | -Limited experience focused on sexual health |
| -Help identify and overcome regulatory barriers for community service delivery |