Effectiveness of the Sista2Sista programme in improving HIV and other sexual and reproductive health outcomes among vulnerable adolescent girls and young women in Zimbabwe.

Background: In Zimbabwe, adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) experience high rates of HIV and other sexual and reproductive health challenges. In 2013, the Zimbabwe Ministry of Health and Child Care partnered with the United Nations Population Fund to implement the Sista2Sista programme, a structured peer group intervention aimed at improving health outcomes among vulnerable in- and out-of-school AGYW.Methods: Programme data was analysed for 91 612 AGYW aged 10-24 years old who participated in Sista2Sista from 2013 to 2019. Logistic regression was used to determine odds ratios (OR) and evaluate programme exposure as a factor in a set of defined variables.Results: 58 471 AGYW (63.82%) graduated from the Sista2Sista programme by completing at least 30 of 40 exercises. Graduates were more likely to take an HIV test (2.78 OR 95% CI 2.52-3.10), less likely to get married (0.63 OR 95% CI 0.55-0.73) and less likely to drop out of school (0.60 OR 95% CI 0.53-0.69). At higher thresholds of programme completion, additional positive outcomes were observed. Participants who completed all 40 exercises were more likely to return to school (1.41 OR 95% CI 1.18-1.69), more likely to use contraception (1.38 OR 95% CI 1.21-1.56), more likely to report sexual abuse (1.76 OR 95% CI 1.17-2.66), and less likely to become pregnant as adolescents (0.41 OR 95% CI 0.24-0.72). Individual counselling improved the likelihood of programme graduation.Conclusions: The Sista2Sista programme had a positive effect on HIV and other sexual health outcomes among vulnerable AGYW in Zimbabwe. Strategies to improve graduation rates should be explored.

What does sustainability mean in the HIV and AIDS response?

Immense progress has been made in the fight against HIV and AIDS. Achieving and exceeding the AIDS targets for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) was accomplished, in large part, due to an unprecedented financial investment from the international community. Following an $800 million dip in donor disbursements in 2010, the discourse has since shifted to the need for greater sustainability of funding. But what does sustainability mean? Current efforts focus heavily on fiscal imperatives such as increasing domestic funding. This is important - needs are increasing at a faster rate than donor funding, especially with increased treatment coverage. The problem is that measures of financial sustainability tell very little about the actual sustainability of specific programmes, disease trajectories or enabling environments. Recognising that current definitions of sustainability lack clarity and depth, we offer a new six-tenet conceptualisation of what sustainability means in the HIV and AIDS response: (1) financial, (2) epidemiological, (3) political, (4) structural, (5) programmatic, and (6) human rights. Based on these, we examine examples of donor transitions for their approach to sustainability, including PEPFAR in South Africa, the Global Fund in Eastern Europe, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in India (Avahan). We conclude that sustainability must be understood within a broader framework beyond funding stability. We also recommend that certain interventions, such as programming for key populations, may have to continue to receive external support even if affected countries can afford to pay.

What does Sustainability Mean in the HIV and AIDS Response?

Immense progress has been made in the fight against HIV and AIDS. Achieving and exceeding the AIDS targets for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) was accomplished; in large part; due to an unprecedented financial investment from the international community. Following an $800 million dip in donor disbursements in 2010; the discourse has since shifted to the need for greater sustainability of funding. But what does sustainability mean? Current efforts focus heavily on fiscal imperatives such as increasing domestic funding. This is important - needs are increasing at a faster rate than donor funding; especially with increased treatment coverage. The problem is that measures of financial sustainability tell very little about the actual sustainability of specific programmes; disease trajectories or enabling environments. Recognising that current definitions of sustainability lack clarity and depth; we offer a new six-tenet conceptualisation of what sustainability means in the HIV and AIDS response: (1) financial; (2) epidemiological; (3) political; (4) structural; (5) programmatic; and (6) human rights. Based on these; we examine examples of donor transitions for their approach to sustainability; including PEPFAR in South Africa; the Global Fund in Eastern Europe; and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in India (Avahan). We conclude that sustainability must be understood within a broader framework beyond funding stability. We also recommend that certain interventions; such as programming for key populations; may have to continue to receive external support even if affected countries can afford to pay