Dataset Information

Economic cost analysis of door-to-door community-based distribution of HIV self-test kits in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:HIV self-testing (HIVST) is recommended by the World Health Organization in addition to other testing modalities to increase uptake of HIV testing, particularly among harder-to-reach populations. This study provides the first empirical evidence of the costs of door-to-door community-based HIVST distribution in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe. METHODS:HIVST kits were distributed door-to-door in 71 sites across Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe from June 2016 to May 2017. Programme expenditures, supplemented by on-site observation and monitoring and evaluation data were used to estimate total economic and unit costs of HIVST distribution, by input and site. Inputs were categorized into start-up, capital and recurrent costs. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to assess the impact of key parameters on unit costs. RESULTS:In total, 152,671, 103,589 and 93,459 HIVST kits were distributed in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe over 12, 11 and 10 months respectively. Across these countries, 43% to 51% of HIVST kits were distributed to men. The average cost per HIVST kit distributed was US$8.15, US$16.42 and US$13.84 in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe, respectively, with pronounced intersite variation within countries driven largely by site-level fixed costs. Site-level recurrent costs were 70% to 92% of full costs and 20% to 62% higher than routine HIV testing services (HTS) costs. Personnel costs contributed from 26% to 52% of total costs across countries reflecting differences in remuneration approaches and country GDP. CONCLUSIONS:These early door-to-door community HIVST distribution programmes show large potential, both for reaching untested populations and for substantial economies of scale as HIVST programmes scale-up and mature. From a societal perspective, the costs of HIVST appear similar to conventional HTS, with the higher providers' costs substantially offsetting user costs. Future approaches to minimizing cost and/or maximize testing coverage could include unpaid door-to-door community-led distribution to reach end-users and integrating HIVST into routine clinical services via direct or secondary distribution strategies with lower fixed costs.

SUBMITTER: Mangenah C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6432106 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Economic cost analysis of door-to-door community-based distribution of HIV self-test kits in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Mangenah Collin C Mwenge Lawrence L Sande Linda L Ahmed Nurilign N d'Elbée Marc M Chiwawa Progress P Chigwenah Tariro T Kanema Sarah S Mutseta Miriam N MN Nalubamba Mutinta M Chilongosi Richard R Indravudh Pitchaya P Sibanda Euphemia L EL Neuman Melissa M Ncube Getrude G Ong Jason J JJ Mugurungi Owen O Hatzold Karin K Johnson Cheryl C CC Ayles Helen H Corbett Elizabeth L EL Cowan Frances M FM Maheswaran Hendramoorthy H Terris-Prestholt Fern F

Journal of the International AIDS Society 20190301

<h4>Introduction</h4>HIV self-testing (HIVST) is recommended by the World Health Organization in addition to other testing modalities to increase uptake of HIV testing, particularly among harder-to-reach populations. This study provides the first empirical evidence of the costs of door-to-door community-based HIVST distribution in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe.<h4>Methods</h4>HIVST kits were distributed door-to-door in 71 sites across Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe from June 2016 to May 2017. Program ...[more]

PMID: 30907499

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionHIV self-testing (HIVST) is being introduced as a new way for more undiagnosed people to know their HIV status. As countries start to implement HIVST, assuring the quality and regulating in vitro diagnostics, including HIVST, are essential. We aimed to document the emerging regulatory landscape and perceptions of key stakeholders involved in HIVST policy and regulation prior to implementation in three low- and middle-income countries.MethodsBetween April and August 2016, we conducted semi-structured interviews in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe to understand the relationships between different stakeholders on their perceptions of current and future HIVST regulation and the potential impact on implementation. We purposively sampled and interviewed 66 national-level key stakeholders from the Ministry of Health and the regulatory, laboratory, logistical, donor and non-governmental sectors. We used a thematic approach to analysis with an inductively developed common coding framework to allow inter-country comparison of emerging themes.ResultsIn all countries, the national reference laboratory was monitoring the quality of HIVST kits entering the public sector. In Malawi, there was no legal mandate to regulate medical devices, in Zambia one regulatory body with a clear mandate had started developing regulations and in Zimbabwe the mandate to regulate was overlapping between two bodies. Stakeholders indicated that they had a poor understanding of the process and requirements for HIVST regulation, as well as lack of clarity and coordination between organizational roles. The need for good collaboration between sectors, a strong post-market surveillance model for HIVST and technical assistance to develop regulators capacity was noted as priorities. Key informants identified technical working groups as a potential way collaboration could be improved upon to accelerate the regulation of HIVST.ConclusionRegulation of in vitro diagnostic devices, including HIVST, is now being recognized as important by regulators after a regional focus on pharmaceuticals. HIVST is providing an opportunity for each country to develop similar regulations to others in the region leading to a more coherent regulatory environment for the introduction of new devices.

Project description:BackgroundThe HPTN 071 (PopART) cluster-randomised trial provided door-to-door HIV testing services to a large proportion of individuals residing in 21 intervention communities in Zambia and South Africa from 2014 to 2017 and reached the UNAIDS first 90 target among women in Zambia, yet gaps remained among men and young adults. This cluster-randomised study nested in the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial sought to increase knowledge of HIV status across all groups by offering the choice of oral HIV self-testing in addition to routine door-to-door HIV testing services.MethodsWe nested this cluster-randomised trial in four HTPN 071 (PopART) intervention communities in northern Zambia. 66 zones (clusters) in these communities were randomly allocated (1:1) to either oral HIV self-testing plus routine door-to-door HIV testing services (HIV self-testing group) or the PopART standard of care of door-to-door HIV testing services alone (non- HIV self-testing group) over a 3-month period. All individuals aged 16 years or older were eligible for HIV testing. Randomisation was achieved by randomly selecting one allocation from a list of 10 000 possible allocations during a public ceremony. In HIV self-testing zones, trained lay-counsellors (known as community HIV care providers) visited households and offered eligible individuals the choice of HIV testing using HIV self-testing or routine door-to-door HIV testing services. For individuals aged 18 years or older whose partner was absent during the household visit, an HIV self-test kit could be left for secondary distribution to the absent partner. The primary outcome was knowledge of HIV status (defined as self-reporting HIV positive to the community HIV care providers or accepting an offer of HIV testing services). Outcomes were measured among households that were first visited, and individuals first enumerated as a household member during the HIV self-testing intervention period. We analysed data at the individual level using population-average logistic regression models, accounting for clustering of outcomes by zone, to estimate the effect of the intervention. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02994329.FindingsBetween Feb 1, and April 30, 2017, the community HIV care providers enumerated 13 267 eligible individuals in the HIV self-testing group and 13 706 in the non-HIV self-testing group. After intervention implementation, 9027 (68%) of 13 267 in the HIV self-testing group had knowledge of HIV status compared with 8952 (65%) of 13 706 in the non-HIV self-testing group (adjusted odds ratio 1·30, 95% CI 1·03-1·65; p=0·03). The effect differed by sex (pinteraction=0·01). Among men, knowledge of HIV status was higher in the HIV self-testing group than in the non-HIV self-testing group (3843 [60%] of 6368 vs 3571 [55%] of 6486; adjusted odds ratio 1·31, 95% CI 1·07-1·60; p=0·01). There was no evidence of a between-group difference among female participants.InterpretationProviding a choice of HIV self-testing during delivery of door-to-door HIV testing services increased knowledge of HIV status, driven by an effect among men. Lay counsellors have a vital role to play in adapting HIV self-testing interventions to local context.FundingThe International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institute of Mental Health, and the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:HIV self-testing (HIVST) provides couples and individuals with a discreet, convenient and empowering testing option. As with all HIV testing, potential harms must be anticipated and mitigated to optimize individual and public health benefits. Here, we describe social harms (SHs) reported during HIVST implementation in Malawi, and propose a framework for grading and responding to harms, according to their severity. METHODS:We report findings from six HIVST implementation studies in Malawi (2011 to 2017) that included substudies investigating SH reports. Qualitative methods included focus group discussions, in-depth interviews and critical incident interviews. Earlier studies used intensive quantitative methods (post-test questionnaires for intimate partner violence, household surveys, investigation of all deaths in HIVST communities). Later studies used post-marketing reporting with/without community engagement. Pharmacovigilance methodology (whereby potentially life-threatening/changing events are defined as "serious") was used to grade SH severity, assuming more complete passive reporting for serious events. RESULTS:During distribution of 175,683 HIVST kits, predominantly under passive SH reporting, 25 serious SHs were reported from 19 (0.011%) self-testers, including 15 partners in eight couples with newly identified HIV discordancy, and one perinatally infected adolescent. There were no deaths or suicides. Marriage break-up was the most commonly reported serious SH (sixteen individuals; eight couples), particularly among serodiscordant couples. Among new concordant HIV-positive couples, blame and frustration was common but rarely (one episode) led to serious SHs. Among concordant HIV-negative couples, increased trust and stronger relationships were reported. Coercion to test or disclose was generally considered "well-intentioned" within established couples. Women felt empowered and were assertive when offering HIVST test kits to their partners. Some women who persuaded their partner to test, however, did report SHs, including verbal or physical abuse and economic hardship. CONCLUSIONS:After more than six years of large-scale HIVST implementation and in-depth investigation of SHs in Malawi, we identified approximately one serious reported SH per 10,000 HIVST kits distributed, predominantly break-up of married serodiscordant couples. Both "active" and "passive" reporting systems identified serious SH events, although with more complete capture by "active" systems. As HIVST is scaled-up, efforts to support and further optimize community-led SH monitoring should be prioritized alongside HIVST distribution.

Project description:BackgroundWidespread access to testing is critical to public health efforts to control the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondary distribution of COVID-19 self-test kits, where an individual distributes test kits to others in their social networks, is a potential strategy to improve access to testing. In this qualitative study, we identified salient beliefs about distributing and accepting COVID-19 self-test kits within one's social network, as well as ordering COVID-19 self-test kits from the government.MethodsWe recruited 61 participants from a randomized controlled trial (NCT04797858) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to elicit beliefs about (1) distributing COVID-19 self-test kits within one's social network, (2) receiving test kits from social contacts, and (3) ordering self-test kits from the government. Using validated, open-ended question stems, we identified the most common set of beliefs underlying attitudes, perceived norms (or social referents), and perceived behavioral control (or self-efficacy) toward each of these behaviors.ResultsTwenty-seven out of 30 (90%) of participants who received self-test kits reported distributing the kits to social contacts. These participants described altruistic beliefs about giving others access to testing, and felt approval from family members, friends, and others in their social networks. When receiving test kits from social network contacts, participants described advantages of test kit convenience, but some voiced concern about test kit tampering and confusing instructions. Participants also described perceived logistic barriers to distributing and receiving self-test kits, such as delivering or transporting test kits, or finding time to meet. Participants who ordered test kits from the government also described increased convenience of test access, but described different logistic barriers such as delays in test kit delivery, or not receiving test kits at all.ConclusionIn comparison with government-ordered test kits, the secondary distribution of COVID-19 self-test kits raised unique concerns about test kit quality and instructions, as well as distinctive logistic barriers related to distributing self-test kits to network contacts, which were not raised for test kits ordered from the government. This study demonstrates that beliefs may vary depending on the type of testing behavior, and behavioral interventions may benefit from developing messages tailored to specific testing strategies.

Project description:BackgroundThere is little evidence to date of the potential impact of vegetable gardens on people living with HIV (PLHIV), who often suffer from social and economic losses due to the disease. From 2008 through 2011, Action Contre la Faim France (ACF) implemented a project in Chipinge District, eastern Zimbabwe, providing low-input vegetable gardens (LIGs) to households of PLHIV. Program partners included Médecins du Monde, which provided medical support, and Zimbabwe's Agricultural Extension Service, which supported vegetable cultivation. A survey conducted at the end of the program found LIG participants to have higher Food Consumption Scores (FCS) and Household Dietary Diversity Scores (HDDS) relative to comparator households of PLHIV receiving other support programs. This study assessed the incremental cost-effectiveness of LIGs to improve FCS and HDDS of PLHIV compared to other support programs.MethodsThis analysis used an activity-based cost model, and combined ACF accounting data with estimates of partner and beneficiary costs derived using an ingredients approach to build an estimate of total program resource use. A societal perspective was adopted to encompass costs to beneficiary households, including their opportunity costs and an estimate of their income earned from vegetable sales. Qualitative methods were used to assess program benefits to beneficiary households. Effectiveness data was taken from a previously-conducted survey.ResultsProviding LIGs to PLHIV cost an additional 8,299 EUR per household with adequate FCS and 12,456 EUR per household with HDDS in the upper tertile, relative to comparator households of PLHIV receiving other support programs. Beneficiaries cited multiple tangible and intangible benefits from LIGs, and over 80% of gardens observed were still functioning more than one year after the program had finished.ConclusionsCost outcomes were 20-30 times Zimbabwe's per capita GDP, and unlikely to be affordable within government services. This analysis concludes that LIGs are not cost-effective or affordable relative to other interventions for improving health and nutrition status of PLHIV. Nonetheless, given the myriad benefits acquired by participant households, such programs hold important potential to improve quality of life and reduce stigma against PLHIV.

Dataset Information

Economic cost analysis of door-to-door community-based distribution of HIV self-test kits in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Publications

Economic cost analysis of door-to-door community-based distribution of HIV self-test kits in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets