A tale of two cascades: promoting a standardized tool for monitoring progress in HIV prevention. (30th June 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Auerbach, Judith D; Gerritsen, Annette AM; Dallabetta, Gina; Morrison, Michelle; Garnett, Geoffrey P
• Is Part Of: Journal of the International AIDS Society. Volume 23(2020)Supplement 3
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2020-06-30
• Subjects: HIV prevention cascades -- HIV prevention programmes -- prevention monitoring -- programme improvement -- key and vulnerable populations -- public health -- intervention; AIDS (Disease) -- Periodicals; HIV infections -- Periodicals; 616.9792005
• DOI: 10.1002/jia2.25498
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1758-2652

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: To achieve significant progress in global HIV prevention from 2020 onward, it is essential to ensure that appropriate programmes are being delivered with high quality and sufficient intensity and scale and then taken up by the people who most need and want them in order to have both individual and public health impact. Yet, currently, there is no standard way of assessing this. Available HIV prevention indicators do not provide a logical set of measures that combine to show reduction in HIV incidence and allow for comparison of success (or failure) of HIV prevention programmes and for monitoring progress in meeting global targets. To redress this, attention increasingly has turned to the prospects of devising an HIV prevention cascade, similar to the now‐standard HIV treatment cascade; but this has proven to be a controversial enterprise, chiefly due to the complexity of primary prevention. Discussion: We address a number of core issues attendant with devising prevention cascades, including: determining the population of interest and accounting for the variability and fluidity of HIV‐related risk within it; the fact that there are multiple HIV prevention methods, and many people are exposed to a package of them, rather than a single method; and choosing the final step (outcome) in the cascade. We propose two unifying models of prevention cascades‐one more appropriate for programme managers and monitors and the other for researchers and programme developers‐and note their relationship. We also provide some considerations related to cascade data quality and improvement. Conclusions: The HIV prevention field has been grappling for years with the idea of developing a standardised way to regularly assess progress and to monitor and improve programmes accordingly. The cascade provides the potential to do this, but it is complicated and highly nuanced. We believe the two models proposed here reflect emerging consensus among the range of stakeholders who have been engaging in this discussion and who are dedicated to achieving global HIV prevention goals by ensuring the most appropriate and effective programmes and methods are supported.