America's HIV Epidemic Analysis Dashboard: Protocol for a Data Resource to Support Ending the HIV Epidemic in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) plan aims to end the HIV epidemic in the United States by 2030. Having timely and accessible data to assess progress toward EHE goals at the local level is a critical resource to achieve this goal. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to introduce America's HIV Epidemic Analysis Dashboard (AHEAD), a data visualization tool that displays relevant data on the 6 HIV indicators provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. AHEAD can be used to monitor progress toward ending the HIV epidemic in local communities across the United States. Its objective is to make data available to stakeholders, which can be used to measure national and local progress toward 2025 and 2030 EHE goals and to help jurisdictions make local decisions that are grounded in high-quality data. METHODS: AHEAD displays data from public health data systems (eg, surveillance systems and census data), organized around the 6 EHE indicators (HIV incidence, knowledge of HIV status, HIV diagnoses, linkage to HIV medical care, viral HIV suppression, and preexposure prophylaxis coverage). Data are displayed for each of the EHE priority areas (48 counties in Washington, District of Columbia, and San Juan, Puerto Rico) which accounted for more than 50% of all US HIV diagnoses in 2016 and 2017 and 7 primarily southern states with high rates of HIV in rural communities. AHEAD also displays data for the 43 remaining states for which data are available. Data features prioritize interactive data visualization tools that allow users to compare indicator data stratified by sex at birth, race or ethnicity, age, and transmission category within a jurisdiction (when available) or compare data on EHE indicators between jurisdictions. RESULTS: AHEAD was launched on August 14, 2020. In the 11 months since its launch, the Dashboard has been visited 26,591 times by 17,600 unique users. About one-quarter of all users returned to the Dashboard at least once. On average, users engaged with 2.4 pages during their visit to the Dashboard, indicating that the average user goes beyond the informational landing page to engage with 1 or more pages of data and content. The most frequently visited content pages are the jurisdiction webpages. CONCLUSIONS: The Ending the HIV Epidemic plan is described as a "whole of society" effort. Societal public health initiatives require objective indicators and require that all societal stakeholders have transparent access to indicator data at the level of the health jurisdictions responsible for meeting the goals of the plan. Data transparency empowers local stakeholders to track movement toward EHE goals, identify areas with needs for improvement, and make data-informed adjustments to deploy the expertise and resources required to locally tailor and implement strategies to end the HIV epidemic in their jurisdiction.

From Theory to Practice: Implementation of a Resource Allocation Model in Health Departments.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a resource allocation model to optimize health departments' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-funded HIV prevention budgets to prevent the most new cases of HIV infection and to evaluate the model's implementation in 4 health departments. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: We developed a linear programming model combined with a Bernoulli process model that allocated a fixed budget among HIV prevention interventions and risk subpopulations to maximize the number of new infections prevented. The model, which required epidemiologic, behavioral, budgetary, and programmatic data, was implemented in health departments in Philadelphia, Chicago, Alabama, and Nebraska. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The optimal allocation of funds, the site-specific cost per case of HIV infection prevented rankings by intervention, and the expected number of HIV cases prevented. RESULTS: The model suggested allocating funds to HIV testing and continuum-of-care interventions in all 4 health departments. The most cost-effective intervention for all sites was HIV testing in nonclinical settings for men who have sex with men, and the least cost-effective interventions were behavioral interventions for HIV-negative persons. The pilot sites required 3 to 4 months of technical assistance to develop data inputs and generate and interpret the results. Although the sites found the model easy to use in providing quantitative evidence for allocating HIV prevention resources, they criticized the exclusion of structural interventions and the use of the model to allocate only CDC funds. CONCLUSIONS: Resource allocation models have the potential to improve the allocation of limited HIV prevention resources and can be used as a decision-making guide for state and local health departments. Using such models may require substantial staff time and technical assistance. These model results emphasize the allocation of CDC funds toward testing and continuum-of-care interventions and populations at highest risk of HIV transmission.