Economic incentives for HIV testing by adolescents in Zimbabwe: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: HIV testing is the important entry point for HIV care and prevention service, but uptake of HIV testing and thus coverage of antiretroviral therapy are much lower in older children and adolescents than in adults. We investigated the effect of economic incentives provided to caregivers of children aged 8-17 years on uptake of HIV testing and counselling in Harare, Zimbabwe. METHODS: This randomised controlled trial was nested within a household HIV prevalence survey of children aged 8-17 years in Harare. Households with one or more survey participants whose HIV status was unknown were eligible to participate in the trial. Eligible households were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to either receive no incentive, receive a fixed US$2 incentive, or participate in a lottery for $5 or $10 if the participant presented for HIV testing and counselling at a local primary health-care centre. The survey fieldworkers who enrolled participants were not blinded to trial arm allocation, but the statistician was blinded for analysis of outcome. The primary outcome was the proportion of households in which at least one child had an HIV test within 4 weeks of enrolment. HIV test uptake in the incentivised groups was compared with uptake in the non-incentivised group using logistic regression, adjusting for community and number of children as fixed effects and research assistant as a random effect. All analyses were by intention to treat. The trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, number PACTR201605001615280. FINDINGS: Between Aug 4, and Dec 18, 2015, 2050 eligible households were enrolled in the prevalence survey. 649 (32%) households were assigned no incentive, 740 (34%) households were assigned a $2 incentive, and 661 (32%) households were assigned to lottery participation. Children were unavailable in 148 households in the no-incentive group, 63 households in the $2 incentive group, and 81 households in the lottery group. 1688 households had at least one child with unknown HIV status and were enrolled into the trial. 22 households had no undiagnosed child, and one household refused consent. The primary outcome of HIV testing was assessed in 472 (28%) households in the no-incentive group, 654 (39%) households in the $2 incentive group, and 562 (33%) households in the lottery group. At least one child was HIV tested in 93 (20%) households in the no-incentive group, in 316 (48%) households in the $2 incentive group (adjusted odds ratio 3·67, 95% CI 2·77-4·85; p<0·0001), and in 223 (40%) of 562 households in the lottery group (2·66, 2·00-3·55; p<0·0001). No adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: Fixed incentives and lottery-based incentives increased the uptake of HIV testing by older children and adolescents, a key hard-to-reach population. This strategy would be sustainable in the context of vertical HIV infection as repeated testing would not be necessary until sexual debut. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust.

Evaluation of sexual and gender-based violence program in Harare City, Zimbabwe, 2016: a descriptive cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: In Zimbabwe, there is a gap between sexual violence (SV) survivors' health care needs versus the existing facilities. Harare city started Sexual Gender Based Violence (SGBV) project in 2011, with the aim to reduce SV morbidity.Only 592 (42%) of 1425 SV survivors reported for medical services within 72 hours in 2015. HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is effective within 72hours of post exposure. We evaluated the program performance in Harare city. METHODS: We conducted a process-outcome evaluation using a logic model. We purposively recruited all eight SGBV sites and key informants. We randomly selected 27nurses into the study. Interviewer-administered questionnaires and checklists were used to collect data. To generate frequencies, means and proportions we used Epi info 7. RESULTS: The program adequately received inputs except for counselling rooms (1/8). About 4285 survivors were recorded from 2013-2016. Of these, 97% were counselled, 93% received HIV test, 41% reported to the clinic within 72hrs of post-rape, and 12% received PEP. About 16% of the total survivors were followed up. The programme failed to meet its targets on decentralised sites (8/10), awareness campaigns(16/32) and sensitisation activities(16/32). About 500(12.5%) IEC materials were distributed. All 96-targeted supervisory visits were achieved. Two ofeight district supervisors were trained. Majority of health workers (25/35) citedlack of awareness as major reasons for underperformance. CONCLUSION: Availability of resources did not translate to program performance. Most survivors were not reporting to the clinic timeously due to the low level of awareness of the programme to the community, hence were not protected from getting HIV through PEP. The programme was not well disseminated, as most supervisors were not trained. Following this evaluation, we distributed150 IEC materials to each of the eight facilities. A follow-up study on outcomes of clients referred for services and training of district officers were recommended.

Evaluation of the adverse events following immunizations surveillance system in Harare City, Zimbabwe, 2016: a descriptive cross sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccines safety are monitored by looking for Adverse Events Following Immunizations (AEFIs). A review of the 2014 Harare City consolidated monthly return form (T5) revealed that 28 AEFIs were seen in 2014. However, only 21 were reported through the system. We therefore evaluated the Harare City AEFI surveillance system to assess its usefulness. METHODS: A descriptive cross sectional study was conducted. Twenty one of 41 clinics were randomly selected and 51 health workers were randomly recruited. Interviewer administered questionnaires were used to collect data. Epi info 7 was used to generate frequencies, means and proportions. RESULTS: Out of 51 respondents, 50 (98%) knew the purpose of AEFI system, 48 (94%) knew at least two presenting symptoms of AEFIs and 39 (77%) knew the correct date of form submission to the next level. Receiving no feedback 24 (47.1%), fear of victimisation 16 (31.4%) and work overload 11 (21.6%) were the major reasons for under reporting. Eighty six percent perceived the system to be simple and 43 (84%) were willing to continue participating. Fifty three percent (27) reported taking public health actions (such as awareness campaigns & making follow ups) basing on AEFI data collected. All 46 reviewed forms were completely filled and submitted in time. All 21 clinics had written AEFI guidelines and case definitions. Only 14 of 21 clinics had adequately stocked emergency drugs. The total cost for a single notification was estimated at US$22.30. CONCLUSION: The system was useful, simple, acceptable, timely, stable, representative but costly. The good performance of the system reported in this evaluation could be attributed to high health worker knowledge. Following this evaluation, replenishment of out of stock drugs and follow up of missing 2014 AEFI feedback from MCAZ were done. In addition, making the system electronic is recommended.