RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a standard tool for evaluating health programs and informing decisions about resource allocation and prioritization. Most CEAs evaluating health interventions in low- and middle-income countries adopt a health sector perspective, accounting for resources funded by international donors and country governments, while often excluding out-of-pocket expenditures and time costs borne by program beneficiaries. Even when patients' costs are included, a companion analysis focused on the patient perspective is rarely performed. We view this as a missed opportunity. METHODS: We developed methods for assessing intervention affordability and evaluating whether optimal interventions from the health sector perspective also represent efficient and affordable options for patients. We mapped the five different patterns that a comparison of the perspective results can yield into a practical framework, and we provided guidance for researchers and decision-makers on how to use results from multiple perspectives. To illustrate the methodology, we conducted a CEA of six HIV treatment delivery models in Mozambique. We conducted a Monte Carlo microsimulation with probabilistic sensitivity analysis from both patient and health sector perspectives, generating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the treatment approaches. We also calculated annualized patient costs for the treatment approaches, comparing the costs with an affordability threshold. We then compared the cost-effectiveness and affordability results from the two perspectives using the framework we developed. RESULTS: In this case, the two perspectives did not produce a shared optimal approach for HIV treatment at the willingness-to-pay threshold of 0.3 × Mozambique's annual GDP per capita per DALY averted. However, the clinical 6-month antiretroviral drug distribution strategy, which is optimal from the health sector perspective, is efficient and affordable from the patient perspective. All treatment approaches, except clinical 1-month distributions of antiretroviral drugs which were standard before Covid-19, had an annual cost to patients less than the country's annual average for out-of-pocket health expenditures. CONCLUSION: Including a patient perspective in CEAs and explicitly considering affordability offers decision-makers additional insights either by confirming that the optimal strategy from the health sector perspective is also efficient and affordable from the patient perspective or by identifying incongruencies in value or affordability that could affect patient participation.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Prior to 2014, data about health seeking behaviors or service uptake for People who inject drugs (PWID) in Mozambique did not exist. We present the results from the formative assessment component of the Biological and Behavioral Survey (BBS). METHODS: Standardized interview guides were used during key informant interviews (KII) and focus group discussions (FGD) in Maputo and Nampula/Nacala to discuss issues related to risk behaviors and access to and utilization of health and social services by PWID. The target sample size was not defined a priori, but instead KII and FGD were conducted until responses reached saturation. Data analysis was based on the principles of grounded theory related to qualitative research. RESULTS: Eighty-eight respondents, ages 15 to 60, participated in KIIs and FGDs. Participants were majority male from diverse income and education levels and included current and former PWID, non-injection drug users, health and social service providers, peer educators, and community health workers. Respondents reported that PWID engage in high-risk behaviors such as needle and syringe sharing, exchange of sex for drugs or money, and low condom use. According to participants, PWID would rather rent, share or borrow injection equipment at shooting galleries than purchase them due to stigma, fear of criminalization, transportation and purchase costs, restricted pharmacy hours, personal preference for needle sharing, and immediacy of drug need. Barriers to access and utilization of health and social services include distance, the limited availability of programs for PWID, lack of knowledge of the few programs that exist, concerns about the quality of care provided by health providers, lack of readiness as a result of addiction and perceived stigma related to the use of mental health services offering treatment to PWID. CONCLUSIONS: Mozambique urgently needs to establish specialized harm reduction programs for PWID and improve awareness of available resources. Services should be located in hot spot areas to address issues related to distance, transportation and the planning required for safe injection. Specific attention should go to the creation of PWID-focused health and social services outside of state-sponsored psychiatric treatment centers.