Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28143525›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2017

Designing an optimal HIV programme for South Africa: Does the optimal package change when diminishing returns are considered?

Calvin Chiu, Leigh F Johnson, Lise Jamieson, Bruce A Larson, Gesine Meyer-Rath

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
17.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. When Global ART Budgets Cannot Cover All Patients, Who Should Be Eligible?Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2019
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Calvin ChiuHealth Economics and Epidemiology Research Office (HE2RO), Department of Internal Medicine, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Leigh F JohnsonCentre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Research (CIDER), University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Lise JamiesonHealth Economics and Epidemiology Research Office (HE2RO), Department of Internal Medicine, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. ljamieson@heroza.org.
Bruce A LarsonCenter for Global Health and Development, Department of International Health, Boston University, Boston, USA.
Gesine Meyer-RathHealth Economics and Epidemiology Research Office (HE2RO), Department of Internal Medicine, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Boston University · USUniversity of the Witwatersrand · ZAWellcome Centre for Infectious Diseases Research in Africa · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSouth Africa has a large domestically funded HIV programme with highly saturated coverage levels for most prevention and treatment interventions. To further optimise its allocative efficiency, we designed a novel optimisation method and examined whether the optimal package of interventions changes when interaction and non-linear scale-up effects are incorporated into cost-effectiveness analysis.

methodsThe conventional league table method in cost-effectiveness analysis relies on the assumption of independence between interventions. We added methodology that allowed the simultaneous consideration of a large number of HIV interventions and their potentially diminishing marginal returns to scale. We analysed the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 16 HIV interventions based on a well-calibrated epidemiological model that accounted for interaction and non-linear scale-up effects, a custom cost model, and an optimisation routine that iteratively added the most cost-effective intervention onto a rolling baseline before evaluating all remaining options. We compared our results with those based on a league table.

resultsThe rank order of interventions did not differ substantially between the two methods- in each, increasing condom availability and male medical circumcision were found to be most cost-effective, followed by anti-retroviral therapy at current guidelines. However, interventions were less cost-effective throughout when evaluated under the optimisation method, indicating substantial diminishing marginal returns, with ICERs being on average 437% higher under our optimisation routine.

conclusionsConventional league tables may exaggerate the cost-effectiveness of interventions when programmes are implemented at scale. Accounting for interaction and non-linear scale-up effects provides more realistic estimates in highly saturated real-world settings.

Indexed as

Circumcision, MaleCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHealth PromotionHIV InfectionsHIV SeropositivityHumansMaleProgram DevelopmentSouth AfricaCost-effectiveness analysisHealth economicsHIVModellingOptimisationSouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID28143525
PMCPMC5282636
OpenAlexW2583221584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.