Counting results: performance-based financing and HIV testing among MSM in China

Are All Gay Men at Risk of Developing HIV/AIDS? Why China's Mass HIV Testing Has Majorly Targeted Gay Men in the Era of Biomedicalization

Global HIV/AIDS responses have been increasingly biomedically dominated over the past years. In line with this shifting paradigm, China has prioritized mass HIV testing as a practical approach to controlling its HIV/AIDS epidemics among at-risk populations, especially gay men and other men who have sex with men (MSM). This study analyzed why China's mass HIV testing mainly targeted gay men by understanding the perspectives of public health professionals, community-based organization (CBO) workers, and gay men. In addition, this study revealed the tensions and unintended consequences of HIV/AIDS prevention and the representation of gay men in China. The study involved fieldwork conducted in a major city in Eastern China from 2015 to 2019. Semi-structured interviews were held with participants from the three abovementioned groups (N = 25). The study identified four processes concerning why gay men are mainly targeted for HIV testing. Some public health professionals believe that being a gay man is equivalent to having HIV/AIDS risks. In addition, this study particularly noted tensions between public health professionals and gay men, including gay men-identified CBO workers, over whether mass HIV testing should target gay men or anyone who engaged in sexual risk behaviors. This study argued that a particular focus on gay men due to pursuing biomedical advances in HIV/AIDS prevention seems to have unintendedly stereotyped gay men based on the presumptions that they are at risk of developing HIV/AIDS. In addition, this study corresponded to the broader social scientific discussion concerning whether HIV/AIDS intervention should target specific sexual risk practices or sexual identity/population.

The anthropology of health systems: A history and review

Ethnographies of health systems are a theoretically rich and rapidly growing area within medical anthropology. Critical ethnographic work dating back to the 1950s has taken policymakers and health staff as points of entry into the power structures that run through the global health enterprise. In the last decade, there has been a surge of ethnographic work on health systems. We conceptualize the anthropology of health systems as a field; review the history of this body of knowledge; and outline emergent literatures on policymaking, HIV, hospitals, Community Health Workers, health markets, pharmaceuticals, and metrics. High-quality ethnographic work is an excellent way to understand the complex systems that shape health outcomes, and provides a critical vantage point for thinking about global health policy and systems. As theory in this space develops and deepens, we argue that anthropologists should look beyond the discipline to think through what their work does and why it matters.

A realist review to assess for whom, under what conditions and how pay for performance programmes work in low- and middle-income countries

Pay for performance (P4P) programmes are popular health system-focused interventions aiming to improve health outcomes in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). This realist review aims to understand how, why and under what circumstance P4P works in LMICs.We systematically searched peer-reviewed and grey literature databases, and examined the mechanisms underpinning P4P effects on: utilisation of services, patient satisfaction, provider productivity and broader health system, and contextual factors moderating these. This evidence was then used to construct a causal loop diagram.We included 112 records (19 grey literature; 93 peer-reviewed articles) assessing P4P schemes in 36 countries. Although we found mixed evidence of P4P's effects on identified outcomes, common pathways to improved outcomes include: community outreach; adherence to clinical guidelines, patient-provider interactions, patient trust, facility improvements, access to drugs and equipment, facility autonomy, and lower user fees. Contextual factors shaping the system response to P4P include: degree of facility autonomy, efficiency of banking, role of user charges in financing public services; staffing levels; staff training and motivation, quality of facility infrastructure and community social norms. Programme design features supporting or impeding health system effects of P4P included: scope of incentivised indicators, fairness and reach of incentives, timely payments and a supportive, robust verification system that does not overburden staff. Facility bonuses are a key element of P4P, but rely on provider autonomy for maximum effect. If health system inputs are vastly underperforming pre-P4P, they are unlikely to improve only due to P4P. This is the first realist review describing how and why P4P initiatives work (or fail) in different LMIC contexts by exploring the underlying mechanisms and contextual and programme design moderators. Future studies should systematically examine health system pathways to outcomes for P4P and other health system strengthening initiatives, and offer more understanding of how programme design shapes mechanisms and effects.