2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Costs and scale-up costs of community-based Oral HIV Self-Testing for female sex workers and men who have sex with men in Jakarta and Bali, Indonesia

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Background

          The proportion of individuals who know their HIV status in Indonesia (66% in 2021) still remains far below the first 95% of UNAIDS 2030 target and were much lower in certain Key Populations (KPs) particularly Female Sex Workers (FSW) and Male having Sex with Male (MSM). Indonesia has implemented Oral HIV Self-testing (oral HIVST) through Community-based screening (HIV CBS) in addition to other testing modalities aimed at hard-to-reach KPs, but the implementation cost is still not analysed. This study provides the cost and scale up cost estimation of HIV CBS in Jakarta and Bali, Indonesia.

          Methods

          We estimated the societal cost of HIV CBS that was implemented through NGOs. The HIV CBS’s total and unit cost were estimated from HIV CBS outcome, health care system cost and client costs. Cost data were presented by input, KPs and areas. Health care system cost inputs were categorized into capital and recurrent cost both in start-up and implementation phases. Client costs were categorized as direct medical, direct non-medical cost and indirect costs. Sensitivity and scenario analyses for scale up were performed.

          Results

          In total, 5350 and 1401 oral HIVST test kits were distributed for HIV CBS in Jakarta and Bali, respectively. Average total client cost for HIV CBS Self testing process ranged from US$1.9 to US$12.2 for 1 day and US$2.02 to US$33.61 for 2 days process. Average total client cost for HIV CBS confirmation test ranged from US$2.83 to US$18.01. From Societal Perspective, the cost per HIVST kit distributed were US$98.59 and US$40.37 for FSW and MSM in Jakarta andUS$35.26 and US$43.31 for FSW and MSM in Bali.

          Conclusions

          CBS using oral HIVST approach varied widely along with characteristics of HIV CBS volume and cost. HIV CBS was most costly among FSW in Jakarta, attributed to the low HIV CBS volume, high personnel salary cost and client cost. Future approaches to minimize cost and/or maximize testing coverage could include unpaid community led distribution to reach end-users, integrating HIVST into routine clinical services via direct or secondary distribution and using social media network.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-024-10577-0.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Attitudes and Acceptability on HIV Self-testing Among Key Populations: A Literature Review

          HIV self-testing (HIVST) is a potential strategy to overcome disparities in access to and uptake of HIV testing, particularly among key populations (KP). A literature review was conducted on the acceptability, values and preferences among KP. Data was analyzed by country income World Bank classification, type of specimen collection, level of support offered and other qualitative aspects. Most studies identified were from high-income countries and among men who have sex with men (MSM) who found HIVST to be acceptable. In general, MSM were interested in HIVST because of its convenient and private nature. However, they had concerns about the lack of counseling, possible user error and accuracy. Data on the values and preferences of other KP groups regarding HIVST is limited. This should be a research priority, as HIVST is likely to become more widely available, including in resource-limited settings. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10461-015-1097-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Comparing the effects of HIV self-testing to standard HIV testing for key populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

            Background We update a previous systematic review to inform new World Health Organization HIV self-testing (HIVST) recommendations. We compared the effects of HIVST to standard HIV testing services to understand which service delivery models are effective for key populations. Methods We did a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared HIVST to standard HIV testing in key populations, published from 1 January 2006 to 4 June 2019 in PubMed, Embase, Global Index Medicus, Social Policy and Practice, PsycINFO, Health Management Information Consortium, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. We extracted study characteristic and outcome data and conducted risk of bias assessments using the Cochrane ROB tool version 1. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted, and pooled effect estimates were assessed along with other evidence characteristics to determine the overall strength of the evidence using GRADE methodology. Results After screening 5909 titles and abstracts, we identified 10 RCTs which reported on testing outcomes. These included 9679 participants, of whom 5486 were men who have sex with men (MSM), 72 were trans people and 4121 were female sex workers. Service delivery models included facility-based, online/mail and peer distribution. Support components were highly diverse and ranged from helplines to training and supervision. HIVST increased testing uptake by 1.45 times (RR=1.45 95% CI 1.20, 1.75). For MSM and small numbers of trans people, HIVST increased the mean number of HIV tests by 2.56 over follow-up (mean difference = 2.56; 95% CI 1.24, 3.88). There was no difference between HIVST and SoC in regard to positivity among tested overall (RR = 0.91; 95% CI 0.73, 1.15); in sensitivity analysis of positivity among randomised HIVST identified significantly more HIV infections among MSM and trans people (RR = 2.21; 95% CI 1.20, 4.08) and in online/mail distribution systems (RR = 2.21; 95% CI 1.14, 4.32). Yield of positive results in FSW was not significantly different between HIVST and SoC. HIVST reduced linkage to care by 17% compared to SoC overall (RR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.74, 0.92). Impacts on STI testing were mixed; two RCTs showed no decreases in STI testing while one showed significantly lower STI testing in the intervention arm. There were no negative impacts on condom use (RR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.83, 1.08), and social harm was very rare. Conclusions HIVST is safe and increases testing uptake and frequency as well as yield of positive results for MSM and trans people without negative effects on linkage to HIV care, STI testing, condom use or social harm. Testing uptake was increased for FSW, yield of positive results were not and linkage to HIV care was worse. Strategies to improve linkage to care outcomes for both groups are crucial for effective roll-out. Supplementary information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12916-020-01835-z.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Allowing for differential timing in cost analyses: discounting and annualization.

              There are differences in timing related to when costs of certain inputs are incurred and when they are used over the lifetime of a programme. This paper looks at the issues related to the comparison of cost data over time focusing on discounting and annualization adjustments, which are used by economists to calculate financial and economic costs. The process of discounting is used to deal with the notion of time preference. Time preference implies that future costs are worth less, and hence discounted more, to reflect individual and societal preferences to have resources and money now rather than in the future. While discounting is appropriate in many situations, it is also useful to compute an annual equivalent cost when recurrent costs of an intervention are incurred, or are expected to be incurred, in subsequent years. This approach has the added benefit of illustrating how capital items are actually used during the lifetime of an intervention. This paper presents methods to both discount and annualize costs, and discusses rules-of-thumb to decide when to make these adjustments.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                suciptaputri@unud.ac.id
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                22 January 2024
                22 January 2024
                2024
                : 24
                : 114
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Udayana University, ( https://ror.org/035qsg823) Jl. P. B. Sudirman, Denpasar, Bali 80232 Indonesia
                [2 ]Center for Public Health Innovation (CPHI), Udayana University, ( https://ror.org/035qsg823) Denpasar, Bali Indonesia
                [3 ]UNAIDS Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
                [4 ]Center for Economics and Development Studies (CEDS), Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Padjadjaran, ( https://ror.org/00xqf8t64) Bandung, West Java Indonesia
                Article
                10577
                10.1186/s12913-024-10577-0
                10802071
                cfd27df5-ca60-488a-91e7-176483f96f7c
                © The Author(s) 2024

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 16 August 2023
                : 8 January 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: UNAIDS Indonesia
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024

                Health & Social care
                costs,cost analysis,scale-up,hiv self-testing,oral fluid test,key populations,knowledge of hiv status,diagnosis,screening,indonesia

                Comments

                Comment on this article