Barriers and opportunities for evidence-based health service planning: the example of developing a Decision Analytic Model to plan services for sexually transmitted infections in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Decision Analytic Models (DAMs) are established means of evidence-synthesis to differentiate between health interventions. They have mainly been used to inform clinical decisions and health technology assessment at the national level, yet could also inform local health service planning. For this, a DAM must take into account the needs of the local population, but also the needs of those planning its services. Drawing on our experiences from stakeholder consultations, where we presented the potential utility of a DAM for planning local health services for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the UK, and the evidence it could use to inform decisions regarding different combinations of service provision, in terms of their costs, cost-effectiveness, and public health outcomes, we discuss the barriers perceived by stakeholders to the use of DAMs to inform service planning for local populations, including (1) a tension between individual and population perspectives; (2) reductionism; and (3) a lack of transparency regarding models, their assumptions, and the motivations of those generating models. DISCUSSION: Technological advances, including improvements in computing capability, are facilitating the development and use of models such as DAMs for health service planning. However, given the current scepticism among many stakeholders, encouraging informed critique and promoting trust in models to aid health service planning is vital, for example by making available and explicit the methods and assumptions underlying each model, associated limitations, and the process of validation. This can be achieved by consultation and training with the intended users, and by allowing access to the workings of the models, and their underlying assumptions (e.g. via the internet), to show how they actually work. SUMMARY: Constructive discussion and education will help build a consensus on the purposes of STI services, the need for service planning to be evidence-based, and the potential for mathematical tools like DAMs to facilitate this.

Reasons for delayed antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation in the era of early ART initiation guidelines: a retrospective service evaluation.

Following changes in national antiretroviral therapy (ART) guidelines removing the CD4 threshold for initiation of ART, we evaluated the time to ART initiation and reasons for delayed or non-initiation. A retrospective notes review of 292 newly diagnosed HIV-positive individuals attending two London clinics between August 2015 and December 2016 was performed. Two hundred and fifty-four of 292 (87%) individuals started ART. Median time to ART initiation was 29 days (range: 0-514). Thirty of 292 (13%) did not start ART. Rates of virological suppression at six months were similar regardless of time to ART initiation. People who inject drugs (16.7% vs. 3.6%) (p = 0.009), having a higher median baseline CD4 cell count (500 vs. 388 cells/mm3, p = 0.001), and having gastrointestinal/liver co-morbidities (23% vs. 9%, p = 0.001) were associated with delayed ART initiation. The cohort not on ART had a higher median baseline CD4 cell count (500 vs. 388 cells/mm3, p < 0.001). Documented reasons for delayed or ART non-initiation included patient's choice, prolonged adjustment periods, and difficulty leaving work. We conclude that delayed or non-initiation of ART was associated with injecting drug use and prolonged adjustment to a new HIV diagnosis. Clinician factors may include lack of urgency with higher baseline CD4 cell counts. Improved linkage to care and drug services pathways may encourage timely ART initiation.