The funding landscape for HIV in Asia and the Pacific.

INTRODUCTION: Despite recent and robust economic growth across the Asia-Pacific region, the majority of low- and middle-income countries in the region remain dependent on some donor support for HIV programmes. We describe the availability of bilateral and multilateral official development assistance (ODA) for HIV programmes in the region. METHODS: The donor countries considered in this analysis are Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. To estimate bilateral and multilateral ODA financing for HIV programmes in the Asia-Pacific region between 2004 and 2013, we obtained funding data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Creditor Reporting System database. Where possible, we checked these amounts against the funding data available from government aid agencies. Estimates of multilateral ODA financing for HIV/AIDS were based on the country allocations announcement by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (the Global Fund) for the period 2014 to 2016. RESULTS: Countries in the Asia-Pacific region receive the largest share of aid for HIV from the Global Fund. Bilateral funding for HIV in the region has been relatively stable over the last decade and is projected to remain below 10% of the worldwide response to the epidemic. Bilateral donors continue to prioritize ODA for HIV to other regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa; Australia is an exception in prioritizing the Asia-Pacific region, but the United States is the bilateral donor providing the greatest amount of assistance in the region. Funding from the Global Fund has increased consistently since 2005, reaching a total of US$1.2 billion for the Asia-Pacific region from 2014 to 2016. CONCLUSIONS: Even with Global Fund allocations, countries in the Asia-Pacific region will not have enough resources to meet their epidemiological targets. Prevention funding is particularly vulnerable and requires greater domestic leadership and coordination. Bilateral donors are still crucially important in the response to HIV throughout the Asia-Pacific region.

Defining health diplomacy: changing demands in the era of globalization.

CONTEXT: Accelerated globalization has produced obvious changes in diplomatic purposes and practices. Health issues have become increasingly preeminent in the evolving global diplomacy agenda. More leaders in academia and policy are thinking about how to structure and utilize diplomacy in pursuit of global health goals. METHODS: In this article, we describe the context, practice, and components of global health diplomacy, as applied operationally. We examine the foundations of various approaches to global health diplomacy, along with their implications for the policies shaping the international public health and foreign policy environments. Based on these observations, we propose a taxonomy for the subdiscipline. FINDINGS: Expanding demands on global health diplomacy require a delicate combination of technical expertise, legal knowledge, and diplomatic skills that have not been systematically cultivated among either foreign service or global health professionals. Nonetheless, high expectations that global health initiatives will achieve development and diplomatic goals beyond the immediate technical objectives may be thwarted by this gap. CONCLUSIONS: The deepening links between health and foreign policy require both the diplomatic and global health communities to reexamine the skills, comprehension, and resources necessary to achieve their mutual objectives.

Simple model for training in the laparoscopic vesicourethral running anastomosis.

PURPOSE: To create a simple model for training in the complex technique of laparoscopic vesicourethral anastomosis after radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A model simulating the performance of a laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis was fashioned using skin of a supermarket chicken set in a laparoscopic training box. A circular continuous anastomosis was performed, following exactly the technique we use in vivo for performing a vesicourethral anastomosis after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Details regarding the use of the right or the left needle holder, needle positioning, precise stitch position, and use of forehand or backhand stitch were strictly respected in order to reproduce the continuous stitch currently done in vivo in our department. The learning curve was analyzed in terms of the time necessary to perform the task and the quality of the anastomosis. RESULTS: The model was created and used by the junior authors during their year of fellowship in advanced laparoscopic urology. The authors had no previous experience with hands-on laparoscopic suturing but have assisted in a great number of laparoscopic radical prostatectomies. The time required for performing the anastomosis on the model declined from 75 minutes initially to 20 minutes after the trainees had performed 20 anastomoses each. After this training, it was possible to create a watertight running laparoscopic vesicourethral anastomosis in patients in a mean time of 40 minutes (range 30-55 minutes). CONCLUSION: This simple model allows the trainee in laparoscopic urology to acquire the skills necessary to perform a laparoscopic vesicourethral anastomosis, one of the most complex steps in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, as well as to develop dexterity and facility in laparoscopic manipulation of needles, sutures, and fragile tissues.