Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: Glob Heart. 2016 Dec;11(4):403–408. doi: 10.1016/j.gheart.2016.10.012

Table 1.

Comparison of selected determinants of political priority setting from the early global responses to the HIV/AIDS and NCD epidemics adapted from the Shiffman framework (2009)

HIV/AIDS NCDs
1) Ideas: the way the health challenge is understood and communicated
  • HIV is one disease and was a new and highly visible health threat

  • ART was widely understood to be highly effective – its impact was described as “Lazarus-like”, returning people from the brink of death. Disparities in access to ART were starkly visible.

  • HIV was framed as a threat to development and security, as it visibly affected young, working-age people and destabilized economies

  • HIV is commonly framed as a humanitarian crisis by civil society

  • NCDs are a collection of diseases, not perceived as novel threats

  • NCD treatment varies from condition to condition; treatment effectiveness is also variable; therapeutic nihilism about the feasibility of treatment for some NCDs was prevalent

  • Incorrectly considered “diseases of the elderly” and “diseases of the wealthy,” the NCD threat is poorly recognized

  • NCDs are often perceived as a secondary issue to infectious diseases, “a crisis for future generations”

2) Actor power: the strength of the individuals and organizations concerned with the issue
  • Grassroots community activism led by those affected by HIV arose to dispel stigma and AIDS denialism

  • In 1996, Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) formed as a dedicated UN branch to tackle the HIV/AIDS epidemic, offering crucial central leadership and organizing power

  • Generally low awareness and demand from patients, and low civil society involvement, especially in low-resource settings where healthcare is organized around HIV

  • Multisectoral partnerships (e.g., NCD Alliance and GACD in 2009) have organized to unite policy makers, donors, researchers and civil society organizations; WHO GCM/NCD was established in 2014 to coordinate global efforts and improve accountability to NCD targets

3) Political context: the environments in which actors connected with the issue operate
  • In 1980s, dominantly conservative US politics emphasized personal responsibility and abstinence, effectively blaming HIV-infected persons and stagnating HIV efforts

  • HIV UNGASS occurred in the context of global economic growth and increased funding scale and diversity

  • Long-term financial commitments were demonstrated by the Global Fund, PEPFAR and other international initiatives

  • HIV, and other infectious diseases (e.g., malaria and tuberculosis) were explicitly included in 2000 MDG targets

  • NCDs currently perceived as largely “diseases of preventable individual behaviors,” placing responsibility on populations affected

  • NCD UNGASS occurred during global economic crisis, with reduced funding availability

  • To date, no large-scale dedicated funding commitment for NCDs akin to PEPFAR for AIDS

  • NCD targets were omitted from MDGs but included in SDGs in 2015

Abbreviations: AIDS - acquired immune deficiency syndrome; ART - antiretroviral therapy; GACD - Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases; GCM/NCD - Global Coordination Mechanism on NCDs; Global Fund – Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; HIV - human immunodeficiency virus; MDG – Millenium Development Goals; NCD - non-communicable disease; PEPFAR – President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief; SDG – Sustainable Development Goals; UN – United Nations; WHO - World Health Organization