Cargando…
Where does public funding for HIV prevention go to? The case of condoms versus microbicides and vaccines
This study analyses the priorities of public donors in funding HIV prevention by either integrated condom programming or HIV preventive microbicides and vaccines in the period between 2000 and 2008. It further compares the public funding investments of the USA government and European governments, in...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2010
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3023651/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21192787 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1744-8603-6-23 |
_version_ | 1782196673516142592 |
---|---|
author | Peters, Anny JTP Scharf, Maja Micevska van Driel, Francien TM Jansen, Willy HM |
author_facet | Peters, Anny JTP Scharf, Maja Micevska van Driel, Francien TM Jansen, Willy HM |
author_sort | Peters, Anny JTP |
collection | PubMed |
description | This study analyses the priorities of public donors in funding HIV prevention by either integrated condom programming or HIV preventive microbicides and vaccines in the period between 2000 and 2008. It further compares the public funding investments of the USA government and European governments, including the EU, as we expect the two groups to invest differently in HIV prevention options, because their policies on sexual and reproductive health and rights are different. We use two existing officially UN endorsed databases to compare the public donor funding streams for HIV prevention of these two distinct contributors. In the period 2000-2008, the relative share of public funding for integrated condom programming dropped significantly, while that for research on vaccines and microbicides increased. The European public donors gave a larger share to condom programming than the United States, but exhibited a similar downward trend in favour of funding research on vaccines and microbicides. Both public donor parties invested progressively more in research on vaccines and microbicides rather than addressing the shortage of condoms and improving access to integrated condom programming in developing countries. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-3023651 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2010 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-30236512011-01-20 Where does public funding for HIV prevention go to? The case of condoms versus microbicides and vaccines Peters, Anny JTP Scharf, Maja Micevska van Driel, Francien TM Jansen, Willy HM Global Health Research This study analyses the priorities of public donors in funding HIV prevention by either integrated condom programming or HIV preventive microbicides and vaccines in the period between 2000 and 2008. It further compares the public funding investments of the USA government and European governments, including the EU, as we expect the two groups to invest differently in HIV prevention options, because their policies on sexual and reproductive health and rights are different. We use two existing officially UN endorsed databases to compare the public donor funding streams for HIV prevention of these two distinct contributors. In the period 2000-2008, the relative share of public funding for integrated condom programming dropped significantly, while that for research on vaccines and microbicides increased. The European public donors gave a larger share to condom programming than the United States, but exhibited a similar downward trend in favour of funding research on vaccines and microbicides. Both public donor parties invested progressively more in research on vaccines and microbicides rather than addressing the shortage of condoms and improving access to integrated condom programming in developing countries. BioMed Central 2010-12-30 /pmc/articles/PMC3023651/ /pubmed/21192787 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1744-8603-6-23 Text en Copyright ©2010 Peters et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (<url>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0</url>), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Peters, Anny JTP Scharf, Maja Micevska van Driel, Francien TM Jansen, Willy HM Where does public funding for HIV prevention go to? The case of condoms versus microbicides and vaccines |
title | Where does public funding for HIV prevention go to? The case of condoms versus microbicides and vaccines |
title_full | Where does public funding for HIV prevention go to? The case of condoms versus microbicides and vaccines |
title_fullStr | Where does public funding for HIV prevention go to? The case of condoms versus microbicides and vaccines |
title_full_unstemmed | Where does public funding for HIV prevention go to? The case of condoms versus microbicides and vaccines |
title_short | Where does public funding for HIV prevention go to? The case of condoms versus microbicides and vaccines |
title_sort | where does public funding for hiv prevention go to? the case of condoms versus microbicides and vaccines |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3023651/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21192787 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1744-8603-6-23 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT petersannyjtp wheredoespublicfundingforhivpreventiongotothecaseofcondomsversusmicrobicidesandvaccines AT scharfmajamicevska wheredoespublicfundingforhivpreventiongotothecaseofcondomsversusmicrobicidesandvaccines AT vandrielfrancientm wheredoespublicfundingforhivpreventiongotothecaseofcondomsversusmicrobicidesandvaccines AT jansenwillyhm wheredoespublicfundingforhivpreventiongotothecaseofcondomsversusmicrobicidesandvaccines |