3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Heterogeneity in individual preferences for HIV testing: A systematic literature review of discrete choice experiments

      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

          Understanding variations in HIV testing preferences can help inform optimal combinations of testing services to maximize coverage. We conducted a systematic review of Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs) eliciting HIV testing preference.

          Methods

          We searched the published literature for papers that conducted DCEs to assess user preferences for HIV testing.

          Findings

          We identified 237 publications; 14 studies conducted in 10 countries met inclusion criteria. Overall, test cost was one of the strongest drivers of preference, with participants preferring free or very low-cost testing. Confidentiality was a salient concern, particularly among key populations and persons who never tested. Participants in resource-limited settings preferred short travel distance and integration of HIV testing with other services. There was substantial heterogeneity across participant characteristics. For example, while women preferred home testing, high-risk groups (e.g. male porters, female bar workers) and men who had not tested in the last year preferred traveling a short distance for testing. HIV self-testing (HIVST) had high acceptability, particularly among those who had never HIV tested, although most users preferred blood-based sample collection over oral swabs. Participants highly valued post-test counselling availability after HIVST.

          Interpretation

          Overall, participants value low-cost, confidential testing with short travel distance. HIVST is a promising strategy to increase testing coverage but post-test counseling and support should be made available. Educational campaigns to increase familiarity and build confidence in results of oral testing can improve the success of HIVST. DCEs conducted within clinic settings likely have limited generalizability to those not seeking care, particularly for key populations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future

          Objectives Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly advocated as a way to quantify preferences for health. However, increasing support does not necessarily result in increasing quality. Although specific reviews have been conducted in certain contexts, there exists no recent description of the general state of the science of health-related DCEs. The aim of this paper was to update prior reviews (1990–2012), to identify all health-related DCEs and to provide a description of trends, current practice and future challenges. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted to identify health-related empirical DCEs published between 2013 and 2017. The search strategy and data extraction replicated prior reviews to allow the reporting of trends, although additional extraction fields were incorporated. Results Of the 7877 abstracts generated, 301 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. In general, the total number of DCEs per year continued to increase, with broader areas of application and increased geographic scope. Studies reported using more sophisticated designs (e.g. D-efficient) with associated software (e.g. Ngene). The trend towards using more sophisticated econometric models also continued. However, many studies presented sophisticated methods with insufficient detail. Qualitative research methods continued to be a popular approach for identifying attributes and levels. Conclusions The use of empirical DCEs in health economics continues to grow. However, inadequate reporting of methodological details inhibits quality assessment. This may reduce decision-makers’ confidence in results and their ability to act on the findings. How and when to integrate health-related DCE outcomes into decision-making remains an important area for future research. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide.

            Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are regularly used in health economics to elicit preferences for healthcare products and programmes. There is growing recognition that DCEs can provide more than information on preferences and, in particular, they have the potential to contribute more directly to outcome measurement for use in economic evaluation. Almost uniquely, DCEs could potentially contribute to outcome measurement for use in both cost-benefit and cost-utility analysis. Within this expanding remit, our intention is to provide a resource for current practitioners as well as those considering undertaking a DCE, using DCE results in a policy/commercial context, or reviewing a DCE. We present the fundamental principles and theory underlying DCEs. To aid in undertaking and assessing the quality of DCEs, we discuss the process of carrying out a choice study and have developed a checklist covering conceptualizing the choice process, selecting attributes and levels, experimental design, questionnaire design, pilot testing, sampling and sample size, data collection, coding of data, econometric analysis, validity, interpretation and welfare and policy analysis. In this fast-moving area, a number of issues remain on the research frontier. We therefore outline potentially fruitful areas for future research associated both with DCEs in general, and with health applications specifically, paying attention to how the results of DCEs can be used in economic evaluation. We also discuss emerging research trends. We conclude that if appropriately designed, implemented, analysed and interpreted, DCEs offer several advantages in the health sector, the most important of which is that they provide rich data sources for economic evaluation and decision making, allowing investigation of many types of questions, some of which otherwise would be intractable analytically. Thus, they offer viable alternatives and complements to existing methods of valuation and preference elicitation.
              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

                Contributors
                Journal
                EClinicalMedicine
                EClinicalMedicine
                EClinicalMedicine
                Elsevier
                2589-5370
                30 November 2020
                December 2020
                30 November 2020
                : 29-30
                : 100653
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Global Health, University of Washington, School of Public Health, 908 Jefferson St, Seattle, WA 98104, United States
                [b ]Department of Clinical Research and Development, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
                [c ]Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
                [d ]Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
                [e ]Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. msharma1@ 123456uw.edu
                Article
                S2589-5370(20)30397-7 100653
                10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100653
                7710637
                33305199
                e278bad6-1433-4537-9b08-61ca6820b2eb
                © 2020 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 10 August 2020
                : 25 October 2020
                : 6 November 2020
                Categories
                Research paper

                preferences,hiv testing,discrete choice experiment,systematic review,hiv,sub-saharan africa

                Comments

                Comment on this article