Financing and cost-effectiveness of emergency medical services in low- and middle-income countries.

In 2023, the 76th World Health Assembly declared coordinated emergency, critical, and operative care services fundamental for comprehensive universal health coverage in low- and middle-income countries. With increasing mortality from noncommunicable diseases, an organized emergency care system has the capacity to treat a variety of conditions with a common set of resources, optimizing per-unit cost efficiency by applying economies of scope and increasing cost-effectiveness. However, the financing and cost-effectiveness of emergency medical services remain poorly understood despite affordability and financial barriers comprising some of the most significant obstacles to development. Cost-effectiveness analyses generate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for comparison against per-capita gross domestic product thresholds to determine cost-effectiveness, promoted by the World Health Organization's Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective program. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios may be used as context-specific indicators of value alongside budget impact and feasibility considerations. Currently, there are few high-quality cost-effectiveness studies of emergency care in low- and middle-income countries, demonstrating significant methodologic heterogeneity, little geographic diversity, neglecting descriptions of assumptions used in cost-effectiveness calculations and comparators used, and lacking incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for comparison. The assessment of emergency care cost-effectiveness is challenging, given the significant breadth of conditions encountered and difficulty in projecting subsequent impact. Without improved epidemiologic surveillance and data-collection infrastructure, data inputs for cost-effectiveness calculations will remain limited. Future efforts should practice standard cost-effectiveness methodologies to permit comparison of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios across interventions and settings while incorporating trauma registry data to longitudinally track patient outcomes over sufficient time horizons to determine impact. New indices that expand the scope of analysis to capture broader secondary impacts of emergency care for future cost-effectiveness studies are needed. In this article, we summarize the key steps for economic evaluations for prehospital care systems and recommend considerations for future prehospital emergency care cost-effectiveness analyses, determining the optimal structure for financing mechanisms well-suited to resource-limited settings are critical for future investigation.

Economic evaluation of facility-based HIV self-testing among adult outpatients in Malawi.

INTRODUCTION: HIV self-testing (HIVST) in outpatient departments (OPD) is a promising strategy for HIV testing in Malawi, given high OPD patient volumes and substantial wait times. To evaluate the relative cost and expected impact of facility-based HIVST (FB-HIVST) at OPDs in Malawi for increasing HIV status awareness, we conducted an economic evaluation of an HIVST cluster-randomized controlled trial. METHODS: A cluster-randomized trial was conducted at 15 sites in Malawi from September 2017 to February 2018 with three arms: 1) Standard provider-initiated-testing-and-counselling (PITC); 2) Optimized PITC (additional provider training and job-aids) and 3) FB-HIVST (HIVST demonstration, distribution and kit use in OPD, private kit interpretation and optional HIV counselling). The total production cost per newly identified positive and per person newly initiated on ART were calculated by study arm. These were calculated as the total cost of testing everyone divided by the number of newly identified positives; and the total cost of testing everyone divided by the number of those initiated on ART. Cost-outcomes were calculated under three cost scenarios: (1) full study costs, (2) routine implementation costs and (3) routine implementation + reduced cost for HIVST kits. RESULTS: The average cost per person newly diagnosed in the full study cost scenario was $101, $156 and $189, and cost per person initiated on ART was $121, $156 and $279 for Standard PITC, Optimized PITC and FB-HIVST respectively. In the routine implementation cost scenario, the average cost per person newly diagnosed was reduced to $83, and $93, and cost per person initiated on ART to $83, and $137 for Optimized PITC and FB-HIVST respectively. In the negotiated HIVST cost scenario, the average cost per person newly diagnosed was reduced to $55 and cost per person newly initiated on ART reduced to $81 in the FB-HIVST arm. CONCLUSIONS: While the cost per new ART initiation through FB-HIVST was higher than Standard PITC, FB-HIVST could become cost-saving compared to PITC if the cost of kits is reduced or if treatment linkage rate were increased in the FB-HIVST arm. For high volume OPDs, HIVST may increase facility capacity and increase the number of newly diagnosed positives.

Acceptability of index partner HIV self-testing among HIV-positive clients in Malawi: A mixed methods analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate whether HIV-positive adults in Malawi were willing to distribute HIV self-testing (HIVST) kits to their sexual partners of unknown HIV status (index HIVST). DESIGN: A mixed-methods study was nested within a larger HIVST trial conducted at 15 health facilities in Malawi. Exit surveys were conducted with HIV-positive adults during routine outpatient department visits to assess perceived acceptability of index partner HIVST versus standard partner referral slips that request partner(s) to attend the health facility. Individuals were included in the sub-analysis irrespective of date of HIV diagnosis or ART initiation (or non-initiation). In-depth interviews were conducted with a sub-sample of respondents. RESULTS: 404 HIV-positive adults completed a survey (159 male and 245 female); 21 completed in-depth interviews. Respondents reported feeling more comfortable distributing HIVST versus partner referral slips to their partners (90% vs. 81%) and expressed confidence that their partners would test using HIVST compared to referral slips (77% vs. 66%). Acceptability of HIVST did not vary by sex. Qualitative data revealed that index HIVST was perceived to be private, convenient, and may strengthen relationships by assisting in serostatus disclosure. There were minimal fears of adverse events. Reported barriers to index HIVST included lack of trust within the relationship and harmful gender norms. CONCLUSIONS: HIV-positive clients were willing to distribute HIVST kits to their sexual partners of unknown serostatus. Additional studies are needed to evaluate use of HIVST by index partners, positivity, linkage to care, and adverse events related to index partner HIVST, such as coercion to test among index partners or interpersonal violence among index clients.

Effect of facility-based HIV self-testing on uptake of testing among outpatients in Malawi: a cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: HIV self-testing increases testing uptake in sub-Saharan Africa but scale-up is challenging because of resource constraints. We evaluated an HIV self-testing intervention integrated into high-burden outpatient departments in Malawi. METHODS: In this cluster-randomised trial, we recruited participants aged 15 years or older from 15 outpatient departments at high-burden health facilities (including health centres, mission hospitals, and district hospitals) in central and southern Malawi. The trial was clustered at the health facility level. We used constrained randomisation to allocate each cluster (1:1:1) to one of the following groups: standard provider-initiated testing and counselling with no intervention (provider offered during consultations), optimised provider-initiated testing and counselling (with additional provider training and morning HIV testing), and facility-based HIV self-testing (Oraquick HIV self-test, group demonstration and distribution, and private spaces for interpretation and counselling). The primary outcome was the proportion of outpatients tested for HIV on the day of enrolment, measured through exit surveys with a sample of outpatients. Analyses were on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03271307, and Pan African Clinical Trials, PACTR201711002697316. FINDINGS: Between Sept 12, 2017, and Feb 23, 2018, 5885 outpatients completed an exit survey-2097 in the HIV self-testing group, 1951 in the standard provider-initiated testing and counselling group, and 1837 in the optimised provider-initiated testing and counselling group. 1063 (51%) of 2097 patients in the HIV self-testing group had HIV testing on the same day as enrolment, compared with 248 (13%) of 1951 in the standard provider-initiated testing and counselling group and 261 (14%) of 1837 in the optimised provider-initiated testing and counselling group. The odds of same-day HIV testing were significantly higher in the facility-based HIV self-testing group compared with either standard provider-initiated testing and counselling (adjusted odds ratio 8·52, 95% CI 3·98-18·24) or optimised provider-initiated testing and counselling (6·29, 2·96-13·38). Around 4% of those tested in the standard provider-initiated testing and counselling and optimised provider-initiated testing and counselling groups felt coerced to test, and around 1% felt coerced to share test results. No coercion was reported in the facility-based HIV self-testing group. INTERPRETATION: Facility-based HIV self-testing increased HIV testing among outpatients in Malawi, with a minimal risk of adverse events. Facility-based HIV self-testing should be considered for scale-up in settings with a high unmet need for HIV testing. FUNDING: United States Agency for International Development.