Costing of HIV services, Uganda and United Republic of Tanzania.

Objective: To evaluate resource allocation and costs associated with delivery of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) services in Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania. Methods: We used time-driven activity-based costing to determine the resources consumed and costs of providing five HIV services in Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania: antiretroviral therapy (ART); HIV testing and counselling; prevention of mother-to-child transmission; voluntary male medical circumcision; and pre-exposure prophylaxis. Findings: Country-based teams undertook time-driven activity-based costing with 1119 adults in Uganda and 886 adults in the United Republic of Tanzania. In Uganda, service delivery costs ranged from 8.18 United States dollars (US$) per visit for HIV testing and counselling to US$ 43.43 for ART (for clients in whom HIV was suppressed). In the United Republic of Tanzania, these costs ranged from US$ 3.67 per visit for HIV testing and counselling to US$ 28.00 for voluntary male medical circumcision. In both countries, consumables were the main cost driver, accounting for more than 60% of expenditure. Process maps showed that in both countries, registration, measurement of vital signs, consultation and medication dispensing were the steps that occurred most frequently for ART clients. Conclusion: Establishing a rigorous, longitudinal system for tracking investments in HIV services that includes thousands of clients and numerous facilities is achievable in different settings with a high HIV burden. Consistent engagement of implementation partners and standardized training and data collection instruments proved essential for the success of these exercises.

Health versus other sectors: Multisectoral resource allocation preferences in Mukono district, Uganda.

OBJECTIVES: To elicit citizen preferences for national budget resource allocation in Uganda, examine respondents' preferences for health vis-à-vis other sectors, and compare these preferences with actual government budget allocations. METHODS: We surveyed 432 households in urban and rural areas of Mukono district in central Uganda.We elicited citizens' preferences for resource allocation across all sectors using a best-worst scaling (BWS) survey. The BWS survey consisted of 16 sectors corresponding to the Uganda national budget line items. Respondents chose, from a subset of four sectors across 16 choice tasks, which sectors they thought were most and least important to allocate resources to. We utilized the relative best-minus-worst score method and a conditional logistic regression to obtain ranked preferences for resource allocation across sectors. We then compared the respondents' preferences with actual government budget allocations. RESULTS: The health sector was the top ranked sector where 82% of respondents selected health as the most important sector for the government to fund, but it was ranked sixth in national budget allocation, encompassing 6.4% of the total budget. Beyond health, water and environment, agriculture, and social development sectors were largely underfunded compared to respondents' preferences. Works and transport, education, security, and justice, law and order received a larger share of the national budget compared to respondents' preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Among respondents from Mukono district in Uganda, we found that citizens' preferences for resource allocation across sectors, including for the health sector, were fundamentally misaligned with current government budget allocations. Evidence of respondents' strong preferences for allocating resources to the health sector could help stakeholders make the case for increased health sector allocations. Greater investment in health is not only essential to satisfy citizens' needs and preferences, but also to meet the government's health goals to improve health, strengthen health systems, and achieve universal health coverage.

Trust in vaccines and medicines in Uganda.

Trust underlies numerous decisions in health care, affecting vaccine uptake as well as care seeking rates, treatment adherence, and health outcomes. Although trust in the doctor-patient relationship has garnered much attention, trust in health care commodities such as vaccines and medicines has rarely been examined. We report findings from a cross-sectional survey to assess trust in vaccines vis-à-vis their trust in conventional medicines and traditional medicines in Uganda. Trust in vaccines, conventional and traditional medicines were assessed by adapting the vaccine hesitancy scale developed by the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. Reported trust in vaccines and conventional medicines was much higher than trust in traditional medicines. Significant associations were observed between trust in vaccines and trust in conventional medicines. Of the trust components explored, respondents were most concerned about access to and safety of vaccines and medicines. Further, respondents' previous health care experiences, primary source of health information, and trust in providers' skills were significantly associated with reported trust in vaccines and medicines. Although strong levels of trust in vaccines and conventional medicines were observed overall, the findings identify areas where policies and communication efforts can focus to strengthen trust.