Evaluation of China Comprehensive AIDS Response Program in 2020.
10.3760/cma.j.cn112338-20211005-00768
- VernacularTitle:2020年全国艾滋病综合防治示范区评估结果分析
- Author:
Duo SHAN
1
;
Hui LI
1
;
Yuan ZHAO
1
;
Yu Fen LIU
1
;
Zhong Fu LIU
1
Author Information
1. Division of Integration and Policy, National Center for AIDS/STD Prevention and Control, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing 102206, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome/prevention & control*;
China/epidemiology*;
Female;
HIV Infections/epidemiology*;
Homosexuality, Male;
Humans;
Male;
Program Evaluation;
Sex Workers;
Sexual and Gender Minorities
- From:
Chinese Journal of Epidemiology
2022;43(4):517-522
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: To analyze the work indicators of China Comprehensive AIDS Response Program (China CARES) and provide reference for future work of the program. Methods: The scores of each indicator were calculated, and different scores among different types of program areas were compared. The M(Q1,Q3) was used to describe the score of each indicator. The entropy weight method was used to calculate the composite score of each indicator and the composite score was translated into a 100-point system and compared among indicators. Results: In terms of the first-level indicators, organizational leadership and management (96.0 points), publicity and education (94.0 points), and innovative strategies and measures (98.0 points) got relatively high scores; while comprehensive social governance of AIDS prevention (72.0 points) was with the lowest score. The scores of publicity and education and comprehensive intervention in county-level program areas were significantly lower than those in urban areas. For secondary indicators, the indicator with relatively lower scores included "condom use among female sex workers last time" (70.0 points)", "at least one local key population has an increase in the number of people receiving HIV testing compared with the previous year" (70.0 points)", "colleges and occupational schools set up AIDS-related self-service facilities" (65.0 points), "HIV testing among the arrested people suspected of prostitution, adultery, drug users and traffickers" (55.0 points) and "condom use among men who have sex with men during last episode" (50.0 points). The "indicator 3 comprehensive intervention" contributed most to the evaluation, while "indicator 7 innovation strategies and measures" played a minor role in the evaluation results. Conclusions: The overall situation of AIDS Response Program in 2020 was good, but the progress in different word areas was not yet balanced. The two areas of comprehensive intervention and comprehensive social governance of AIDS prevention should be strengthened. It is also suggested that relevant indicators be adjusted appropriately to improve evaluation indicators system and comprehensively promote the program.
