Provider and female client economic costs of integrated sexual and reproductive health and HIV services in Zimbabwe.

A retrospective facility-based costing study was undertaken to estimate the comparative cost per visit of five integrated sexual and reproductive health and HIV (human immuno-deficiency virus) services (provider perspective) within five clinic sites. These five clinics were part of four service delivery models: Non-governmental-organisation (NGO) directly managed model (Chitungwiza and New Africa House sites), NGO partner managed site (Mutare site), private-public-partnership (PPP) model (Chitungwiza Profam Clinic), and NGO directly managed outreach (operating from New Africa House site. In addition client cost exit interviews (client perspective) were conducted among 856 female clients exiting integrated services at three of the sites. Our costing approach involved first a facility bottom-up costing exercise (February to April 2015), conducted to quantify and value each resource input required to provide individual SRH and HIV services. Secondly overhead financial expenditures were allocated top-down from central office to sites and then respective integrated service based on pre-defined allocation factors derived from both the site facility observations and programme data for the prior 12 months. Costs were assessed in 2015 United States dollars (USD). Costs were assessed for HIV testing and counselling, screening and treatment of sexually transmitted infections, tuberculosis screening with smear microscopy, family planning, and cervical cancer screening and treatment employing visual inspection with acetic acid and cervicography and cryotherapy. Variability in costs per visit was evident across the models being highest for cervical cancer screening and cryotherapy (range: US$6.98-US$49.66). HIV testing and counselling showed least variability (range; US$10.96-US$16.28). In general the PPP model offered integrated services at the lowest unit costs whereas the partner managed site was highest. Significant client costs remain despite availability of integrated sexual and reproductive health and HIV services free of charge in our Zimbabwe study setting. Situating services closer to communities, incentives, transport reimbursements, reducing waiting times and co-location of sexual and reproductive health and HIV services may help minimise impact of client costs.

Preferences for oral-fluid-based or blood-based HIV self-testing and provider-delivered testing: an observational study among different populations in Zimbabwe.

BACKGROUND: There is limited data on client preferences for different HIV self-testing (HIVST) and provider-delivered testing options and associated factors. We explored client preferences for oral-fluid-based self-testing (OFBST), blood-based self-testing (BBST) and provider-delivered blood-based testing (PDBBT) among different populations. METHODS: At clinics providing HIV testing services to general populations (1 urban, 1 rural clinic), men seeking voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC, 1 clinic), and female sex workers (FSW, 1 clinic), clients had the option to test using OFBST, BBST or PDBBT. A pre-test questionnaire collected information on demographics and testing history. Two weeks after collecting a self-test kit, participants responded to a questionnaire. We used logistic regression to determine predictors of choices. We also conducted 20 in-depth interviews to contextualise quantitative findings. RESULTS: May to June 2019, we recruited 1244 participants of whom 249 (20%), 251 (20%), 244 (20%) and 500 (40%) were attending urban general, rural, VMMC and FSW clinics, respectively. Half (n = 619, 50%) chose OFBST, 440 (35%) and 185 (15%) chose BBST and PDBBT, respectively. In multivariable analysis comparing those choosing HIVST (OFBST and BBST combined) versus not, those who had never married aOR 0.57 (95% CI 0.34-0.93) and those previously married aOR0.56 (0.34-0.93) were less likely versus married participants to choose HIVST. HIVST preference increased with education, aOR 2.00 (1.28-3.13), 2.55 (1.28-5.07), 2.76 (1.48-5.14) for ordinary, advanced and tertiary education, respectively versus none/primary education. HIVST preference decreased with age aOR 0.97 (0.96-0.99). Urban participants were more likely than rural ones to choose HIVST, aOR 9.77 (5.47-17.41), 3.38 (2.03-5.62) and 2.23 (1.38-3.61) for FSW, urban general and VMMC clients, respectively. Comparing those choosing OFBST with those choosing BBST, less literate participants were less likely to choose oral fluid tests, aOR 0.29 (0.09-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Most testing clients opted for OFBST, followed by BBST and lastly, PDBBT. Those who self-assessed as less healthy were more likely to opt for PDBBT which likely facilitated linkage. Results show importance of continued provision of all strategies in order to meet needs of different populations, and may be useful to inform both HIVST kit stock projections and tailoring of HIVST programs to meet the needs of different populations.

Comparison of community-led distribution of HIV self-tests kits with distribution by paid distributors: a cluster randomised trial in rural Zimbabwean communities.

BACKGROUND: We compared community-led versus an established community-based HIV self-testing (HIVST) model in rural Zimbabwe using a cluster-randomised trial. METHODS: Forty village groups were randomised 1:1 using restricted randomisation to community-led HIVST, where communities planned and implemented HIVST distribution for 4 weeks, or paid distribution (PD), where distributors were paid US$50 to distribute kits door-to-door over 4 weeks. Individual level primary outcomes compared household survey responses by arm 4 months post-intervention for: (1) newly diagnosed HIV during/within 4 months following HIVST distribution, (2) linkage to confirmatory testing, pre-exposure prophylaxis or voluntary medical male circumcision during/within 4 months following HIVST distribution. Participants were not masked to allocation; analysis used masked data. Trial analysis used random-effects logistic regression.Distribution costs compared: (1) community-led HIVST, (2) PD HIVST and (3) PD costs when first implemented in 2016/2017. RESULTS: From October 2018 to August 2019, 27 812 and 36 699 HIVST kits were distributed in community-led and PD communities, respectively. We surveyed 11 150 participants and 5683 were in community-led arm. New HIV diagnosis was reported by 211 (3.7%) community-led versus 197 (3.6%) PD arm participants, adjusted OR (aOR) 1.1 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.56); 318 (25.9%) community-led arm participants linked to post-test services versus 361 (23.9%) in PD arm, aOR 1.1 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.49.Cost per HIVST kit distributed was US$6.29 and US$10.25 for PD and community-led HIVST, both lower than 2016/2017 costs for newly implemented PD (US$14.52). No social harms were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Community-led HIVST can perform as well as paid distribution, with lower costs in the first year. These costs may reduce with programme maturity/learning. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PACTR201811849455568.

Applying user preferences to optimize the contribution of HIV self-testing to reaching the "first 90" target of UNAIDS Fast-track strategy: results from discrete choice experiments in Zimbabwe.

INTRODUCTION: New HIV testing strategies are needed to reach the United Nations' 90-90-90 target. HIV self-testing (HIVST) can increase uptake, but users' perspectives on optimal models of distribution and post-test services are uncertain. We used discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to explore the impact of service characteristics on uptake along the testing cascade. METHODS: DCEs are a quantitative survey method that present respondents with repeated choices between packages of service characteristics, and estimate relative strengths of preferences for service characteristics. From June to October 2016, we embedded DCEs within a population-based survey following door-to-door HIVST distribution by community volunteers in two rural Zimbabwean districts: one DCE addressed HIVST distribution preferences; and the other preferences for linkage to confirmatory testing (LCT) following self-testing. Using preference coefficients/utilities, we identified key drivers of uptake for each service and simulated the effect of changes of outreach and static/public clinics' characteristics on LCT. RESULTS: Distribution and LCT DCEs surveyed 296/329 (90.0%) and 496/594 (83.5%) participants; 81.8% and 84.9% had ever-tested, respectively. The strongest distribution preferences were for: (1) free kits - a $1 increase in the kit price was associated with a disutility (U) of -2.017; (2) door-to-door kit delivery (U = +1.029) relative to collection from public/outreach clinic; (3) telephone helpline for pretest support relative to in-person or no support (U = +0.415); (4) distributors from own/local village (U = +0.145) versus those from external communities. Participants who had never HIV tested valued phone helplines more than those previously tested. The strongest LCT preferences were: (1) immediate antiretroviral therapy (ART) availability: U = +0.614 and U = +1.052 for public and outreach clinics, respectively; (2) free services: a $1 user fee increase decreased utility at public (U = -0.381) and outreach clinics (U = -0.761); (3) proximity of clinic (U = -0.38 per hour walking). Participants reported willingness to link to either location; but never-testers were more averse to LCT. Simulations showed the importance of availability of ART: ART unavailability at public clinics would reduce LCT by 24%. CONCLUSIONS: Free HIVST distribution by local volunteers and immediately available ART were the strongest relative preferences identified. Accommodating LCT preferences, notably ensuring efficient provision of ART, could facilitate "resistant testers" to test while maximizing uptake of post-test services.