Abstract
Introduction Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are a significant public health challenge, but there is a perceived lack of political priority in addressing STIs as a global health issue. Our study aimed to understand the determinants of global political priority for STIs since the 1980s and to discern implications for future prioritisation.
Methods Through semi-structured interviews from July 2021 to February 2022, we engaged 20 key stakeholders (8 women, 12 men) from academia, United Nations agencies, international non-governmental organisations, philanthropic organisations, and national public health agencies. A published policy framework was employed for thematic analysis, and findings triangulated with relevant literature and policy documents. We examined issue characteristics, prevailing ideas, actor power dynamics and political contexts.
Results A contrast in perspectives before and after the year 2000 emerged. STI control was high on the global health agenda during the late 1980s and 1990s, as a means to control HIV. A strong policy community agreed on evidence about the high burden of STIs and that STI management could reduce the incidence of HIV. The level of importance decreased when further research evidence did not find an impact of STI control interventions on HIV incidence. Since 2000, cohesion in the STI community has decreased. New framing for broad STI control has not emerged. Interventions that have been funded, such as human papillomavirus vaccination and congenital syphilis elimination have been framed as cancer control or improving newborn survival, rather than as STI control.
Conclusion Globally, the perceived decline in STI control priority might stem from discrepancies between investment choices and experts’ views on STI priorities. Addressing STIs requires understanding the intertwined nature of politics and empirical evidence in resource allocation. The ascent of universal health coverage presents an opportunity for integrated STI strategies but high-quality care sustainable funding and strategic coordination are essential.
What is already know on this topic?
■ Setting priorities within health services is a political process.
■ Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) other than HIV are a significant public health issue.
■ STI control was high on the global health agenda in the late 1980s and 1990s, when it was promoted as a means to lower the transmission of HIV, but attention paid to STI control appears to have waned over the past two decades.
What this study adds?
■ A range of factors, including but not limited to, empirical evidence of disease burden, have driven the attention paid to STI control over time.
■ The STI community has lacked cohesion, champions and engagement with civil society, thus contributing to their lowered position on health policy agendas.
■ STI control has been successful when framed as reaching aligned goals in other areas – HIV control, maternal and child health, cancer control – or when a biomedical intervention (vaccine, diagnostic) is available.
How this study might affect research, practice or policy?
■ A more politically aware approach to STI control could increase policy attention and resource allocation, moving beyond technical evidence to understanding and leveraging political context.
■ The rollout of universal health coverage can present opportunities to integrate STI control into broader health policy reform and prioritisation, but the STI community will need to pay attention to issue-framing, community cohesion, and the role of policy entrepreneurs if they are to have success in forging a window of policy opportunity.
■ STI advocacy needs to be strengthened through strategic alliances with a diverse group of stakeholders, including civil society (e.g., those representing the broader sexual and reproductive health agenda and the cancer agenda).
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was co-funded by the Swiss Network of International Studies
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Cantonal Research Ethics Committee in Bern, Switzerland (Req-2020-00269, March 2020) waived ethical approval for this work under the Human Research Act, Art. 2, Paragraphs 1, Switzerland
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
