Economic evaluation of implementation science outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Historically, the focus of cost-effectiveness analyses has been on the costs to operate and deliver interventions after their initial design and launch. The costs related to design and implementation of interventions have often been omitted. Ignoring these costs leads to an underestimation of the true price of interventions and biases economic analyses toward favoring new interventions. This is especially true in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where implementation may require substantial up-front investment. This scoping review was conducted to explore the topics, depth, and availability of scientific literature on integrating implementation science into economic evaluations of health interventions in LMICs. METHODS: We searched Web of Science and PubMed for papers published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2021, that included components of both implementation science and economic evaluation. Studies from LMICs were prioritized for review, but papers from high-income countries were included if their methodology/findings were relevant to LMIC settings. RESULTS: Six thousand nine hundred eighty-six studies were screened, of which 55 were included in full-text review and 23 selected for inclusion and data extraction. Most papers were theoretical, though some focused on a single disease or disease subset, including: mental health (n = 5), HIV (n = 3), tuberculosis (n = 3), and diabetes (n = 2). Manuscripts included a mix of methodology papers, empirical studies, and other (e.g., narrative) reviews. Authorship of the included literature was skewed toward high-income settings, with 22 of the 23 papers featuring first and senior authors from high-income countries. Of nine empirical studies included, no consistent implementation cost outcomes were measured, and only four could be mapped to an existing costing or implementation framework. There was also substantial heterogeneity across studies in how implementation costs were defined, and the methods used to collect them. CONCLUSION: A sparse but growing literature explores the intersection of implementation science and economic evaluation. Key needs include more research in LMICs, greater consensus on the definition of implementation costs, standardized methods to collect such costs, and identifying outcomes of greatest relevance. Addressing these gaps will result in stronger links between implementation science and economic evaluation and will create more robust and accurate estimates of intervention costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this manuscript was published on the Open Science Framework. It is available at: https://osf.io/ms5fa/ (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/32EPJ).

The cost and intermediary cost-effectiveness of oral HIV self-test kit distribution across 11 distribution models in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Countries around the world seek innovative ways of closing their remaining gaps towards the target of 95% of people living with HIV (PLHIV) knowing their status by 2030. Offering kits allowing HIV self-testing (HIVST) in private might help close these gaps. METHODS: We analysed the cost, use and linkage to onward care of 11 HIVST kit distribution models alongside the Self-Testing AfRica Initiative's distribution of 2.2 million HIVST kits in South Africa in 2018/2019. Outcomes were based on telephonic surveys of 4% of recipients; costs on a combination of micro-costing, time-and-motion and expenditure analysis. Costs were calculated from the provider perspective in 2019 US$, as incremental costs in integrated and full costs in standalone models. RESULTS: HIV positivity among kit recipients was 4%-23%, with most models achieving 5%-6%. Linkage to confirmatory testing and antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation for those screening positive was 19%-78% and 2%-72% across models. Average costs per HIVST kit distributed varied between $4.87 (sex worker model) and $18.07 (mobile integration model), with differences largely driven by kit volumes. HIVST kit costs (at $2.88 per kit) and personnel costs were the largest cost items throughout. Average costs per outcome increased along the care cascade, with the sex worker network model being the most cost-effective model across metrics used (cost per kit distributed/recipient screening positive/confirmed positive/initiating ART). Cost per person confirmed positive for HIVST was higher than standard HIV testing. CONCLUSION: HIV self-test distribution models in South Africa varied widely along four characteristics: distribution volume, HIV positivity, linkage to care and cost. Volume was highest in models that targeted public spaces with high footfall (flexible community, fixed point and transport hub distribution), followed by workplace models. Transport hub, workplace and sex worker models distributed kits in the least costly way. Distribution via index cases at facility as well as sex worker network distribution identified the highest number of PLHIV at lowest cost.

Correction: Costs and cost-effectiveness of LEEP versus cryotherapy for treating cervical dysplasia among HIV-positive women in Johannesburg, South Africa.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203921.].

Costs and cost-effectiveness of LEEP versus cryotherapy for treating cervical dysplasia among HIV-positive women in Johannesburg, South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer incidence is significant in countries, such as South Africa, with high burdens of both HIV and human papillomavirus (HPV). Cervical cancer is largely preventable if dysplasia is diagnosed and treated early, but there is debate regarding the best approaches for screening and treatment, especially for low-resource settings. Currently South Africa provides Pap smears followed by colposcopic biopsy and LEEP if needed in its public health facilities. We estimated the costs and cost-effectiveness of two approaches for treating cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+) among HIV-infected women, most of whom were taking antiretroviral treatment, at a public HIV treatment facility in Johannesburg, South Africa. METHODS: Method effectiveness was derived from an intention-to-treat analysis of data gathered in a clinical trial completed previously at the study facility. In the trial, women who were diagnosed with CIN2+ and eligible for cryotherapy were randomized to cryotherapy or LEEP. If women were CIN2+ at six months as determined via Pap smear and colposcopic biopsy, all women-regardless of their original treatment assignment-received LEEP. "Cure" was then defined as the absence of disease at 12 months based on Pap smear and colposcopic biopsy. Health service costs were estimated using micro-costing between June 2013 and April 2014. Capital costs were annualized using a discount rate of 3%. Two different service volume scenarios were considered, and results from an as-treated analysis were considered in sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: In total, 166 women with CIN2+ were enrolled (86 had LEEP; 80 had cryotherapy). At 12 months, cumulative loss to follow-up was 12.8% (11/86) for the LEEP group and 13.8% (11/80) for cryotherapy. Based on the unadjusted intention-to-treat analysis conducted for this economic evaluation, there was no significant difference in efficacy. At 12 months, 83.8% (95% CI 73.8-91.1) of women with CIN2+ at baseline and randomized to cryotherapy were free of CIN2+ disease. In contrast, 76.7% (95% CI 66.4-85.2) of women assigned to LEEP were free from disease. On average, women initially treated with cryotherapy were less costly per patient randomized at US$ 118.00 (113.91-122.10), and per case "cured" at US$ 140.90 (136.01-145.79). Women in the LEEP group cost US$ 162.56 (157.90-167.22) per patient randomized and US$ 205.59 (199.70-211.49) per case cured. In the as-treated analysis, which was based on trial data, LEEP was more efficacious than cryotherapy; however, the difference was not significant. Cryotherapy remained more cost-effective than LEEP in all sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: For this cost-effectiveness analysis, using an intention-to-treat approach and taking into consideration uncertainty in the clinical and cost outcomes, a strategy involving cryotherapy plus LEEP if needed at six months was dominant to LEEP plus LEEP again at six months if needed for retreatment. However, compared to other studies comparing LEEP and cryotherapy, the efficacy results were low in both treatment groups-possibly due to the HIV-positivity of the participants. Further research is needed, but at present choosing the "right" treatment option may be less important than ensuring access to treatment and providing careful monitoring of treatment outcomes.

Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Three Approaches for Cervical Cancer Screening among HIV-Positive Women in Johannesburg, South Africa.

BACKGROUND: South Africa has high rates of HIV and HPV and high incidence and mortality from cervical cancer. However, cervical cancer is largely preventable when early screening and treatment are available. We estimate the costs and cost-effectiveness of conventional cytology (Pap), visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) and HPV DNA testing for detecting cases of CIN2+ among HIV-infected women currently taking antiretroviral treatment at a public HIV clinic in Johannesburg, South Africa. METHODS: Method effectiveness was derived from a validation study completed at the clinic. Costs were estimated from the provider perspective using micro-costing between June 2013-April 2014. Capital costs were annualized using a discount rate of 3%. Two different service volume scenarios were considered. Threshold analysis was used to explore the potential for reducing the cost of HPV DNA testing. RESULTS: VIA was least costly in both scenarios. In the higher volume scenario, the average cost per procedure was US$ 3.67 for VIA, US$ 8.17 for Pap and US$ 54.34 for HPV DNA. Colposcopic biopsies cost on average US$ 67.71 per procedure. VIA was least sensitive but most cost-effective at US$ 17.05 per true CIN2+ case detected. The cost per case detected for Pap testing was US$ 130.63 using a conventional definition for positive results and US$ 187.52 using a more conservative definition. HPV DNA testing was US$ 320.09 per case detected. Colposcopic biopsy costs largely drove the total and per case costs. A 71% reduction in HPV DNA screening costs would make it competitive with the conservative Pap definition. CONCLUSIONS: Women need access to services which meet their needs and address the burden of cervical dysplasia and cancer in this region. Although most cost-effective, VIA may require more frequent screening due to low sensitivity, an important consideration for an HIV-positive population with increased risk for disease progression.

Inequalities in public health care delivery in Zambia.

BACKGROUND: Access to adequate health services that is of acceptable quality is important in the move towards universal health coverage. However, previous studies have revealed inequities in health care utilisation in the favour of the rich. Further, those with the greatest need for health services are not getting a fair share. In Zambia, though equity in access is extolled in government documents, there is evidence suggesting that those needing health services are not receiving their fair share. This study seeks therefore, to assess if socioeconomic related inequalities/inequities in public health service utilisation in Zambia still persist. METHODS: The 2010 nationally representative Zambia Living Conditions and Monitoring Survey data are used. Inequality is assessed using concentration curves and concentrations indices while inequity is assessed using a horizontal equity index: an index of inequity across socioeconomic status groups, based on standardizing health service utilisation for health care need. Public health services considered include public health post visits, public clinic visits, public hospital visits and total public facility visits. RESULTS: There is evidence of pro-poor inequality in public primary health care utilisation but a pro-rich inequality in hospital visits. The concentration indices for public health post visits and public clinic visits are -0.28 and -0.09 respectively while that of public hospitals is 0.06. After controlling for need, the pro-poor distribution is maintained at primary facilities and with a pro-rich distribution at hospitals. The horizontal equity indices for health post and clinic are estimated at -0.23 and -0.04 respectively while that of public hospitals is estimated at 0.11. A pro-rich inequity is observed when all the public facilities are combined (horizontal equity index = 0.01) though statistically insignificant. CONCLUSION: The results of the paper point to areas of focus in ensuring equitable access to health services especially for the poor and needy. This includes strengthening primary facilities that serve the poor and reducing access barriers to ensure that health care utilisation at higher-level facilities is distributed in accordance with need for it. These initiatives may well reduce the observed inequities and accelerate the move towards universal health coverage in Zambia.