ReviewHIV/AIDS (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Prevention Strategies: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.
Review in HIV/AIDS (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: HIV/AIDS continues to pose a significant global health challenge, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Economic evaluations are essential to identify cost-effective prevention strategies and allocate limited healthcare resources efficiently. Objective: This systematic review aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of HIV prevention interventions across various populations and settings, and to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus for English-language studies published between January 2003 and November 2023. The PRISMA guidelines were followed for the review process. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Results: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, exhibiting diverse methodologies, target populations, and healthcare perspectives. The majority of studies reported that primary prevention methods-such as prenatal screening, harm reduction programs for drug users, and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for high-risk groups-were more cost-effective than secondary or tertiary interventions. Study populations included pregnant women (38.4%), injection drug users (23.1%), men who have sex with men (23.1%), and general populations (15.4%). Overall, most studies demonstrated medium to high methodological quality. Conclusion: Primary prevention strategies for HIV are generally cost-effective, especially when tailored to specific high-risk populations. However, more robust, context-specific evaluations are needed to support policy-making across diverse healthcare systems. Decision-makers should prioritize investment in early detection and preventive programs to optimize outcomes and resource use.
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.