ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Understanding the cost-utility of implementing HIV self-testing with digital-based supports.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: HIV self-testing (HIVST) is an innovative strategy that has been shown to increase uptake of HIV testing compared to conventional facility-based testing. HIVST implementation with digital-based supports may help facilitate testing accessibility and linkage to care after a reactive self-test. Economic evidence around community-based implementation of HIVST is growing; however, economic evidence around digital-based HIVST approaches remains limited. Methods: We used previously published cost and efficacy data from HIVST interventions, with the specific intervention model differing between scenarios. Digital-based interventions included text messaging campaigns and online websites that promoted uptake and linkage to HIVST care. Community-based interventions included door-to-door distribution, peer-incentivized distribution, and mobile testing units. Using data obtained from the literature, we parameterized a combined Markov and decision analytic model to evaluate the cost-utility of digital-based HIVST implementation across Malawi, South Africa, and Brazil compared to both community-based HIVST and facility-based testing. Results: We found that HIVST was cost-effective compared to facility-based testing in all settings investigated. Our scenarios predicted that digital-based HIVST was associated with an incremental cost in the range of $769-$17,839/DALY (disability-adjusted life year) averted compared to facility-based testing across Malawi, South Africa, and Brazil. Digital-based HIVST cost savings had an incremental cost of $7,300/DALY averted compared to community-based HIVST. The main drivers of cost-utility included HIV test and treatment costs, HIV test-positivity, rates of linkage to care, and antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation rates. Digital-based supports were associated with an increased cost compared to facility-based testing, but they also had increased utility, which led to favorable cost-utility estimates. Discussion: HIVST with digital supports has the potential to be a highly cost-effective approach, with the potential to make HIV testing more available and accessible, thereby increasing overall uptake and coverage of HIV testing. Digital supports can also support linkage to care, which we have identified as a major driver of cost-utility. Strategies to improve cost-utility include reducing testing costs, targeting key populations with increased rates of HIV test-positivity, and ensuring strong support for linkage to care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.