-
Our data acquisition encompassed a wide array of materials linked to HIV/AIDS spanning from 1982 to 2021. This collection comprises national policy documents, detailed accounts of significant outbreaks, and expressive commentary from esteemed entities such as high-level government dignitaries, delegates of the National People’s Congress (NPC), and members of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC). Additionally, we included insights from public health authorities, HIV/AIDS activists, and other influential individuals who have made significant contributions to combating HIV/AIDS. The data collection process for this study involved sourcing material from a variety of reputable online platforms and scientific journal publications (12-15)
1 . By the conclusion of the data collection in February 2022, a comprehensive set of 471 relevant documents issued by China’s central government from 1982 to 2021 had been amassed. -
Drawing upon the contents of the text and consultations with experts, we examined the trajectory of policy evolution across three dimensions: the substance of the policies, the stakeholders involved, and the governmental levels at which the policies were enacted. To quantify this analysis, we devised a set of indicators organized into three categories: policy focus areas; government agencies responsible for issuing policies; and the scope of government agendas.
Identification and Categorization of Policy Focus Areas: We endeavor to refine the methodology for classifying policies according to their salient content. Upon reviewing the content, we categorized 471 pertinent policies and events into 16 distinct classifications, as delineated in Table 1.
Policy indicators Variables Policy focus areas 1) Treatment
2) Public education
3) Surveillance and monitoring
4) Social engagement and participation
5) Governmental departments coordination
6) Oversight and evaluation of policy implementation
7) Assistance to people affected by HIV/AIDS
8) Strategic plans
9) International collaborations
10) Specific interventions to transmission routes
11) Scientific studies and researches
12) Comprehensive policies
13) Initiations & reforms of government program management mechanism and personnel training
14) Academic conferences
15) Press releases
16) Other areasGovernment agencies which have issued policies 1) State Council and/or Central Party Committee (CPC)
2) Ministry of Health (MOH)
3) Other Ministries (Ministries or Agencies other than the MOH collaborated to issue policies together, without an apparent lead)
4) MOH-Led with Other Ministries (MOH led and other Ministries participated)
5) Other Ministry Led (Another Ministry/Agency led with participation from multiple ministries/agencies, MOH may also participate)Level of government agendas 1) DAP (1982–1994)
2) NAP (1995–2021)
a) a period of Jointly Conferences (1995–2003)
b) a period of SCAWC established (institutionalized) (2004–2021)Table 1. HIV/AIDS policy development indicators.
Policies promulgated by either individual or multiple governmental bodies: Certain policies have emanated from a solitary agency, whereas others have been collaboratively issued by multiple responsible entities. The count of agencies engaged acts as a barometer for gauging the level of priority attributed to HIV/AIDS policy measures.
Governmental response stratification: the evolution of China’s HIV/AIDS policy coordination mechanism has led to its classification into distinct phases: the initial Department-Agenda Period (DAP) (1982–1994), followed by the comprehensive National (State-Council)-Agenda Period (NAP) (1995–2021). The NAP bifurcates further into two stages: the earlier Joint Conference Period (1995–2003), designated as NAP I, and the subsequent SCAWC Period (2004–2021), hereafter referred to as NAP II.
-
We conducted an analysis to illustrate the evolution of HIV/AIDS policies from 1984 to 2021, presenting the changes in the form of a line chart. Additionally, a cross-tabulation analysis was performed to examine the relationship between policy indicators and the policy coordination mechanism.
-
Figure 1 shows changes in the number of HIV/AIDS policies from 1984 to 2021. The annual number of policies varied significantly, with a peak in 2004 at 36 policies. Notably, a consistently high number of policies were issued from 2005 to 2007. In 1995, another peak occurred with 29 policies. Before 1995, policy issuance was low, averaging 5.2 policies per year. The fewest policies were issued in 1984 and 1994. The periods between 1996–2003 and 2008–2021 saw relatively large and stable outputs of policies following the peak years. Since 2000, approximately 10 policies were issued annually (except in 2013), though the yearly maximum did not exceed 20 policies.
-
Table 2 presents the responsible government agencies and policy focus areas. China has promulgated a total of 471 HIV/AIDS-related policies, of which 85 (18.0%) pertain to public education.
Policy focus areas n (%) Issuing agencies State Council
(n=104), %MOH
(n=223), %Other ministries*
(n=61), %MOH-led with other ministries
(n=50), %Other ministry led†
(n=33), %Treatment 28 (5.9) 1.0 8.5 6.6 2.0 9.1 Public education 85 (18.0) 21.2 11.2 23.0 24.0 36.4 Surveillance and monitoring 26 (5.5) 1.9 8.5 1.6 8.0 0.0 Social engagement and participation 6 (1.3) 0.0 0.9 0.0 6.0 3.0 Governmental departments coordination 25 (5.3) 14.4 3.6 3.3 0.0 0.0 Oversight and evaluation of policy implementation 23 (4.9) 7.7 5.4 1.6 4.0 0.0 Assistance to people affected by HIV/AIDS 8 (1.7) 0.0 0.4 6.6 2.0 6.1 Strategic plans 25 (5.3) 14.4 2.7 3.3 4.0 0.0 International collaborations 25 (5.3) 4.8 8.1 0.0 2.0 3.0 Specific interventions to transmission routes 66 (14.0) 1.9 20.6 8.2 22.0 6.1 Scientific studies and researches 35 (7.4) 1.0 4.0 24.6 10.0 15.2 Comprehensive policies 37 (7.9) 7.7 8.5 9.8 4.0 3.0 Initiations & reforms of government program management mechanism and personnel training 21 (4.5) 5.8 4.9 3.3 2.0 3.0 Academic conferences 9 (1.9) 0.0 2.7 0.0 2.0 6.1 Press releases 6 (1.3) 1.0 2.2 0.0 2.0 0.0 Other areas 46 (9.8) 17.3 7.6 8.2 6.0 9.1 Abbreviation: MOH=ministry of health; HIV=human immunodeficiency virus; AIDS=acquired immune deficiency syndrome.
* Other Ministries: ministries (other than the MOH) collaborated to issue policies together, without an apparent lead.
† Other Ministry Led: a ministry other than the MOH led the policy development, however, the MOH may still be part of the policy development.Table 2. Policy focus areas by issuing agencies.
In examining the distribution of policies promulgated by specific agencies since 1984, it is evident that the State Council issued 104 policies, the MOH issued 223, while other ministries issued 61. There were also collaborative efforts, with the MOH leading and supported by other ministries in issuing 50 policies, and other ministries leading in the issuance of 33 policies. Regarding the types of policies issued, public education was a predominant focus for the State Council, collaborative efforts led by the MOH, and initiatives led by other ministries, with respective emphasis of 21.2%, 24.0%, and 36.4%. The State Council concentrated more on coordinating government departments and implementing strategic plans, with each area receiving 14.4% of its policy efforts. The MOH, tasked with drafting health-related policies, emphasized specific interventions targeted at transmission routes (20.6%), as well as endorsing comprehensive policies, surveillance, and monitoring (each at 8.5%). Other ministries and ministry-led initiatives placed a significant emphasis on scientific studies and research with these categories receiving 24.6% and 15.2% of the policies, respectively. For the MOH-led collaborations with support from other ministries, the focus after public education was on specific interventions to address transmission routes, which accounted for 22.0% of the policies.
-
Table 3 presents the distribution of policies issued by agencies as well as by periods over the past four decades, demonstrating a significant shift in the perception of HIV/AIDS from an issue of MOH-level importance to one of national importance.
Items Whole period
(1982–2021)Level of government agendas DAP (1982–1994)
MOH agendaNAP (1995–2021) NAP (1995–2021) NAP I (1995–2003) NAP II (2004–2021) Total policies issued (n) 471 58 413 131 282 Average policies per year (n) 11.8 4.5 15.3 14.6 15.7 Government agencies issued policies (%) State Council 22.1 10.3 23.7 13.7 28.4 Ministry of Health 47.3 56.9 46.0 61.8 38.7 Other ministry 13.0 10.3 13.3 13.0 13.5 Health led with other ministries 10.6 19.0 9.4 9.2 9.6 Other ministry led 7.0 3.4 7.5 2.3 9.9 Policy focus areas (%) Treatment 5.9 1.7 6.5 6.9 6.4 Public education 18.0 12.1 18.9 13.7 21.3 Surveillance and monitoring 5.5 15.5 4.1 6.1 3.2 Social engagement and participation 1.3 3.4 1.0 0.0 1.4 Governmental departments coordination 5.3 1.7 5.8 9.9 3.9 Oversight and evaluation of policy implementation 4.9 1.7 5.3 3.1 6.4 Assistance to people affected by HIV/AIDS 1.7 0.0 1.9 0.0 2.8 Strategic plans 5.3 3.4 5.6 5.3 5.7 International collaborations 5.3 3.4 5.6 9.9 3.5 Specific interventions to transmission routes 14.0 24.1 12.6 19.8 9.2 Scientific studies and researches 7.4 3.4 8.0 2.3 10.6 Comprehensive policies 7.6 10.3 7.3 6.1 7.8 Initiations & reforms of government program management mechanism and personnel training 4.5 12.1 3.4 3.8 3.2 Academic conferences 1.9 0.0 2.2 4.6 1.1 Press releases 1.5 3.4 1.2 2.3 0.7 Other areas 9.8 3.4 10.7 6.1 12.8 Abbreviation: HIV=human immunodeficiency virus; AIDS=acquired immune deficiency syndrome; DPA=department-agenda period; MOH=ministry of health; NAP=national-agenda period; NAP I=Joint Conference Period; NAP II=State Council AIDS Working Committee Period. Table 3. HIV/AIDS policy development by government policy agenda periods.
The approach to policy coordination underwent significant evolution over the years. Initially, from 1982 to 1994, there was an absence of any formal coordination mechanism. This shifted in the period from 1995 to 2003, during which a coordination mechanism existed, albeit without the support of a formally established committee. Subsequent to this phase, a formal committee was established.
During the DAP era, governmental entities functioned autonomously, frequently with conflicting objectives, employing rigid regulatory instruments without harmonized collaboration or the institutional adaptability to adjust to evolving circumstances over time. Conversely, in the NAP phase, the approach to HIV/AIDS policy extended beyond the confines of the healthcare sector and treatment in isolation. The State Council shifted its emphasis to broader public education initiatives, the coordination of government departments, strategic planning, and additional sectors.
-
During the DAP, the MOH was responsible for formulating and promulgating over half of the policies, accounting for 56.9%.
In the analysis of the NAP (1995–2021), there is a discernible trend in the reallocation of policy-making authority. The MOH, whether acting independently or in collaboration with other ministries, experienced a reduction in its share of policy initiatives — from 56.9% to 46% for MOH-led policies, and from 19.0% to 9.4% for those involving a partnership with other ministries. In contrast, the role of the State Council in policy enactment has more than doubled, increasing from 10.3% to 23.7%.
During the NAP I (1995−2003), there was a discernible shift in the pattern of policy-making among governmental entities. The State Council saw its contribution to policy issuance rise from 10.3% to 13.7%. Nevertheless, the MOH retained a significant influence throughout this era, originating 61.8% of the policies and spearheading an additional 9.2% of policy development efforts. Consequently, the MOH was responsible for the oversight of a substantial 71% of policies implemented during this timeframe.
During the NAP II (2004−2021), there was a noticeable rise in the volume of policy-making activity by the State Council, evidenced by an increase from 13.7% of proposals during the NAP I to 28.4% in the NAP II. Concurrently, the proportion of policy proposals from the MOH experienced a marked decline, falling from 61.8% to 38.7% from NAP I to NAP II. However, there was a marginal uptick in policies spearheaded by the MOH, rising slightly from 9.2% to 9.6%.
-
Transitioning from the DAP to the NAP, there has been a discernible shift in policy emphasis from targeted interventions and pathways of transmission, along with surveillance and monitoring (decreasing from 24.1% to 12.6%, and from 15.5% to 4.1%, respectively), to an enhanced focus on public education (increasing from 12.1% to 18.9%) and treatment strategies (rising from 1.7% to 6.5%). There was a notable decline in the proportion of policies dedicated to the initiation and reform of government program management mechanisms and staff training, from 12.1% to 3.4%. Significantly, increased attention has been given to scientific researches (increasing from 3.4% to 8.0%) and the coordination between government departments (rising from 1.7% to 5.8%). Additionally, previous deficiencies in areas such as academic conferences and support for individuals impacted by HIV/AIDS have been incrementally addressed over time (increasing from 0.0% to 2.2% and from 1.9% respectively).
During distinct periods, policy emphasis and decision-making priorities shifted markedly. Within the duration of DAP, policies emphasis was placed on targeted interventions to impede transmission routes and other strategies. Conversely, throughout the NAP I, while maintaining a focus on targeted transmission interventions (19.8%) and public education (13.7%), there was an observable uptick in attention to the coordination of governmental departments (9.9%) and bolstering international collaborations (9.9%). Notably, the prevalence of treatment-related policies expanded during this phase, escalating from 1.7% to 6.9%. The subsequent phase, the NAP II, was characterized by a heightened prioritization of public education, representing 21.3% of the policy output. This shift suggests that the SCAWC has begun to effectively fulfill a coordinating role in the formulation of policies.
HTML
Data Source
Study Design
Data Analysis
HIV/AIDS Policy Evolution Trends
Policy Focus Areas by Issuing Agencies
Level of Government Agenda by Period
Government Agencies Involved by Period
Evolution of Policy Focus Areas by Period
FootNote
① |
|
Citation: |