Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38346046›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Provider and female client economic costs of integrated sexual and reproductive health and HIV services in Zimbabwe.

Collin Mangenah, Euphemia L Sibanda, Galven Maringwa, Justice Sithole, Stephano Gudukeya, Owen Mugurungi, Karin Hatzold, Fern Terris-Prestholt, Hendramoorthy Maheswaran, Harsha Thirumurthy and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Collin MangenahCentre for Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Research (CeSHHAR), Harare, Zimbabwe.ORCID 0000-0002-0733-0622
Euphemia L SibandaCentre for Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Research (CeSHHAR), Harare, Zimbabwe.
Galven MaringwaCentre for Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Research (CeSHHAR), Harare, Zimbabwe.
Justice SitholePopulation Services International, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Stephano GudukeyaPopulation Services International, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Owen MugurungiMinistry of Health and Childcare, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Karin HatzoldPopulation Services International, Washington DC, United States of America.
Fern Terris-PrestholtPolicy, Advocacy and Knowledge Branch, UNAIDS, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-1693-5196
Hendramoorthy MaheswaranInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Harsha ThirumurthyDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.
Frances M CowanCentre for Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Research (CeSHHAR), Harare, Zimbabwe.
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine · GBImperial College London · GBJoint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS · CHMinistry of Health and Child Welfare · ZWPopulation Services International · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A retrospective facility-based costing study was undertaken to estimate the comparative cost per visit of five integrated sexual and reproductive health and HIV (human immuno-deficiency virus) services (provider perspective) within five clinic sites. These five clinics were part of four service delivery models: Non-governmental-organisation (NGO) directly managed model (Chitungwiza and New Africa House sites), NGO partner managed site (Mutare site), private-public-partnership (PPP) model (Chitungwiza Profam Clinic), and NGO directly managed outreach (operating from New Africa House site. In addition client cost exit interviews (client perspective) were conducted among 856 female clients exiting integrated services at three of the sites. Our costing approach involved first a facility bottom-up costing exercise (February to April 2015), conducted to quantify and value each resource input required to provide individual SRH and HIV services. Secondly overhead financial expenditures were allocated top-down from central office to sites and then respective integrated service based on pre-defined allocation factors derived from both the site facility observations and programme data for the prior 12 months. Costs were assessed in 2015 United States dollars (USD). Costs were assessed for HIV testing and counselling, screening and treatment of sexually transmitted infections, tuberculosis screening with smear microscopy, family planning, and cervical cancer screening and treatment employing visual inspection with acetic acid and cervicography and cryotherapy. Variability in costs per visit was evident across the models being highest for cervical cancer screening and cryotherapy (range: US$6.98-US$49.66). HIV testing and counselling showed least variability (range; US$10.96-US$16.28). In general the PPP model offered integrated services at the lowest unit costs whereas the partner managed site was highest. Significant client costs remain despite availability of integrated sexual and reproductive health and HIV services free of charge in our Zimbabwe study setting. Situating services closer to communities, incentives, transport reimbursements, reducing waiting times and co-location of sexual and reproductive health and HIV services may help minimise impact of client costs.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsReproductive Health ServicesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHIVHumansReproductive HealthRetrospective StudiesZimbabwe

Identifiers

PMID38346046
PMCPMC10861069
OpenAlexW4391743465

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.