2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Pragmatic economic evaluation of community-led delivery of HIV self-testing in Malawi

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Community-based strategies can extend coverage of HIV testing and diagnose HIV at earlier stages of infection but can be costly to implement. We evaluated the costs and effects of community-led delivery of HIV self-testing (HIVST) in Mangochi District, Malawi.

          Methods

          This economic evaluation was based within a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial of 30 group village heads and their catchment areas comparing the community-led HIVST intervention in addition to the standard of care (SOC) versus the SOC alone. The intervention involved mobilising community health groups to lead 7-day HIVST campaigns including distribution of HIVST kits. The SOC included facility-based HIV testing services. Primary costings estimated economic costs of the intervention and SOC from the provider perspective, with costs annualised and measured in 2018 US$. A postintervention survey captured individual-level data on HIV testing events, which were combined with unit costs from primary costings, and outcomes. The incremental cost per person tested HIV-positive and associated uncertainty were estimated.

          Results

          Overall, the community-led HIVST intervention costed $138 624 or $5.70 per HIVST kit distributed, with test kits and personnel the main contributing costs. The SOC costed $263 400 or $4.57 per person tested. Individual-level provider costs were higher in the community-led HIVST arm than the SOC arm (adjusted mean difference $3.77, 95% CI $2.44 to $5.10; p<0.001), while the intervention effect on HIV positivity varied based on adjustment for previous diagnosis. The incremental cost per person tested HIV positive was $324 but increased to $1312 and $985 when adjusting for previously diagnosed self-testers or self-testers on treatment, respectively. Community-led HIVST demonstrated low probability of being cost-effective against plausible willingness-to-pay values, with HIV positivity a key determinant.

          Conclusion

          Community-led HIVST can provide HIV testing at a low additional unit cost. However, adding community-led HIVST to the SOC was not likely to be cost-effective, especially in contexts with low prevalence of undiagnosed HIV.

          Trial registration number

          NCT03541382.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Women's groups practising participatory learning and action to improve maternal and newborn health in low-resource settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

          Maternal and neonatal mortality rates remain high in many low-income and middle-income countries. Different approaches for the improvement of birth outcomes have been used in community-based interventions, with heterogeneous effects on survival. We assessed the effects of women's groups practising participatory learning and action, compared with usual care, on birth outcomes in low-resource settings. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials undertaken in Bangladesh, India, Malawi, and Nepal in which the effects of women's groups practising participatory learning and action were assessed to identify population-level predictors of effect on maternal mortality, neonatal mortality, and stillbirths. We also reviewed the cost-effectiveness of the women's group intervention and estimated its potential effect at scale in Countdown countries. Seven trials (119,428 births) met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses of all trials showed that exposure to women's groups was associated with a 37% reduction in maternal mortality (odds ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.32-0.94), a 23% reduction in neonatal mortality (0.77, 0.65-0.90), and a 9% non-significant reduction in stillbirths (0.91, 0.79-1.03), with high heterogeneity for maternal (I(2)=58.8%, p=0.024) and neonatal results (I(2)=64.7%, p=0.009). In the meta-regression analyses, the proportion of pregnant women in groups was linearly associated with reduction in both maternal and neonatal mortality (p=0.026 and p=0.011, respectively). A subgroup analysis of the four studies in which at least 30% of pregnant women participated in groups showed a 55% reduction in maternal mortality (0.45, 0.17-0.73) and a 33% reduction in neonatal mortality (0.67, 0.59-0.74). The intervention was cost effective by WHO standards and could save an estimated 283,000 newborn infants and 41,100 mothers per year if implemented in rural areas of 74 Countdown countries. With the participation of at least a third of pregnant women and adequate population coverage, women's groups practising participatory learning and action are a cost-effective strategy to improve maternal and neonatal survival in low-resource settings. Wellcome Trust, Ammalife, and National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Birmingham and the Black Country programme. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Systematic review and meta-analysis of community and facility-based HIV testing to address linkage to care gaps in sub-Saharan Africa.

            HIV testing and counselling is the first crucial step for linkage to HIV treatment and prevention. However, despite high HIV burden in sub-Saharan Africa, testing coverage is low, particularly among young adults and men. Community-based HIV testing and counselling (testing outside of health facilities) has the potential to reduce coverage gaps, but the relative impact of different modalities is not well assessed. We conducted a systematic review of HIV testing modalities, characterizing community (home, mobile, index, key populations, campaign, workplace and self-testing) and facility approaches by population reached, HIV positivity, CD4 count at diagnosis and linkage. Of 2,520 abstracts screened, 126 met eligibility criteria. Community HIV testing and counselling had high coverage and uptake and identified HIV-positive people at higher CD4 counts than facility testing. Mobile HIV testing reached the highest proportion of men of all modalities examined (50%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 47-54%) and home with self-testing reached the highest proportion of young adults (66%, 95% CI = 65-67%). Few studies evaluated HIV testing for key populations (commercial sex workers and men who have sex with men), but these interventions yielded high HIV positivity (38%, 95% CI = 19-62%) combined with the highest proportion of first-time testers (78%, 95% CI = 63-88%), indicating service gaps. Community testing with facilitated linkage (for example, counsellor follow-up to support linkage) achieved high linkage to care (95%, 95% CI = 87-98%) and antiretroviral initiation (75%, 95% CI = 68-82%). Expanding home and mobile testing, self-testing and outreach to key populations with facilitated linkage can increase the proportion of men, young adults and high-risk individuals linked to HIV treatment and prevention, and decrease HIV burden.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Community-based strategies to strengthen men’s engagement in the HIV care cascade in sub-Saharan Africa

              Monica Sharma and colleagues discuss evidence-based approaches to improving HIV services for men in sub-Saharan Africa.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Glob Health
                BMJ Glob Health
                bmjgh
                bmjgh
                BMJ Global Health
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2059-7908
                2021
                18 July 2021
                : 6
                : Suppl 4
                : e004593
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentDepartment of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy , London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine , London, UK
                [2 ]Malawi-Liverpool-Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme , Blantyre, Malawi
                [3 ]departmentDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health , London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine , London, UK
                [4 ]departmentSchool of Public Health , University of the Witwatersrand , Johannesburg, South Africa
                [5 ]departmentInstitute of Population Health Sciences , University of Liverpool , Liverpool, UK
                [6 ]Population Services International Malawi , Lilongwe, Malawi
                [7 ]departmentDepartment of HIV and AIDS , Ministry of Health , Lilongwe, Malawi
                [8 ]departmentGlobal HIV, Hepatitis and Sexually Transmitted Infections Programmes , WHO , Geneva, Switzerland
                [9 ]departmentDepartment of Clinical Research, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases , London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine , London, UK
                [10 ]Population Services International , Washington, DC, USA
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Pitchaya P Indravudh; pitchaya.indravudh@ 123456lshtm.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4013-7645
                Article
                bmjgh-2020-004593
                10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004593
                8287609
                34275869
                06f50819-ebb4-4edf-abe4-c431287b6583
                ©World Health Organization 2021. Licensee BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non commercial IGO License (CC BY-NC 3.0 IGO), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction for non-commercial purposes in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any reproduction of this article there should not be any suggestion that WHO or this article endorse any specific organization or products. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL.

                History
                : 30 November 2020
                : 27 March 2021
                : 16 April 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: Unitaid;
                Award ID: PO#8477-0-600
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004440, Wellcome Trust;
                Award ID: WT091769
                Categories
                Original Research
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                other diagnostic or tool,health economics,hiv,cluster randomized trial

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content39

                Cited by2

                Most referenced authors292