The cost of implementing the Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach for a cluster randomized trial integrating HIV testing into family planning services in Mombasa County, Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Although HIV testing in family planning (FP) clinics is a promising approach for engaging women in HIV treatment and prevention services, HIV testing rates are low in FP clinics in Kenya. In 2018, a cluster randomized trial was implemented in Mombasa, Kenya applying the Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach (SAIA) to integrate HIV testing into FP services (1K24HD088229-01). We estimated the incremental costs and explored cost drivers of the FP HIV SAIA implementation in Mombasa, Kenya. METHODS: We conducted a costing evaluation from the payer perspective for the FP HIV SAIA randomized control trial. We identified relevant activities for the intervention including start-up, training, research and FP HIV SAIA. We estimated activity time burden using a time-and motion study. We derived unit costs through staff interviews and programmatic budgets. We present cost estimates for two different scenarios: as-implemented including research and projected costs for a Ministry of Health-supported intervention. All costs are reported in 2018 USD. RESULTS: For an annual program output of 36,086 HIV tests administered to new FP clients, we estimated the total annual program cost to be $91,994 with an average cost per new FP client served of $2.55. Personnel and HIV rapid testing kits comprised 55% and 21% of programmatic costs, respectively. Assuming no changes to program outputs and with efficiency gains under the MOH scenario, the estimated cost per new FP client served decreased to $1.30 with a programmatic cost reduction of 49%. CONCLUSION: FP HIV SAIA is a low-cost and flexible implementation strategy for facilitating integrated delivery of HIV testing alongside FP services. Although cost implications of the FP HIV SAIA intervention must continue to be evaluated over time, these findings provide context-specific cost data useful for budget planning and decision-making regarding intervention delivery and expansion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on December 15, 2016, with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02994355).

A cross-sectional study of the prevalence, barriers, and facilitators of cervical cancer screening in family planning clinics in Mombasa County, Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the most common cancer in sub-Saharan Africa. With appropriate screening and treatment, cervical cancer can be prevented. In Kenya, cervical cancer screening is recommended for all women of reproductive age who visit a health facility. In particular, the Kenyan Ministry of Health has tasked family planning clinics and HIV clinics with implementing cervical cancer screening as part of the overall cervical cancer screening strategy. A cross-sectional survey was conducted to understand cervical cancer screening practices and explore clinic-level barriers and facilitators to screening in family planning clinics (FP) in Mombasa County, Kenya. METHODS: Structured interviews were conducted with randomly sampled FP clinic managers to collect information about clinic size, location, type, management support, infrastructure, screening practices, and availability of screening commodities. Data were abstracted from FP registers for a 15-month period from October 1, 2017 until December 31, 2018 to understand cervical cancer screening prevalence. Generalized linear models were used to calculate prevalence ratios (PR) and identify clinic-level correlates of reporting any cervical cancer screening. RESULTS: A total of 70 clinics were sampled, 54% (38) were urban and 27% (19) were public facilities. The median number of staff in a clinic was 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 2-6) with a median of 1 provider trained to perform screening (IQR 0-3). Fifty-four percent (38/70) of clinic managers reported that their clinics performed cervical cancer screening. Of these, only 87% (33) and 71% (27) had dependable access to speculums and acetic acid, respectively. Being a public FP clinic was associated with higher prevalence of reported screening (14/38 [37%] vs 6/32 [16%]; prevalence rate ratio [PR] 1.57, 95%CI 1.05-2.33). Clinics that reported cervical cancer screening were much more likely to have at least one provider trained to perform cervical cancer screening (84%, 32/38) compared to clinics that did not report screening (28%, 9/32; PR 3.77, 95%CI 1.82-7.83). CONCLUSION: Integration of cervical cancer screening into FP clinics offers great potential to reach large numbers of reproductive-aged women. Increasing training of healthcare providers and ensuring adequate commodity supplies in FP clinics offer concrete solutions to increase screening in a largely unscreened population.

Performance of family planning clinics in conducting recommended HIV counseling and testing in Mombasa County, Kenya: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: A high proportion of African women utilize family planning (FP) services. Accordingly, incorporating HIV testing into FP services may strategically target the first WHO 90-90-90 goal of 90% of people living with HIV knowing their status. METHODS: The objective of this analysis was to determine the proportion of new FP clients counseled and tested for HIV, as well as correlates of HIV testing, in a random sample of 58 FP clinics in Mombasa County, Kenya. Structured interviews of FP clinic managers collected data on characteristics of FP clinics and staff. Study staff performed a 3-month review of FP registers, summarizing new client HIV testing and counseling (HTC). Because overall rates of HTC were quite low, a binary variable was created comparing clinics performing any HIV counseling and/or testing to clinics performing none. Generalized linear models were used to calculate prevalence ratios (PR) and identify correlates of HTC. Factors associated with any HTC with a p-value < 0.10 in univariate analysis were included in a multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Of the 58 FP clinics, 26 (45%) performed any counseling for HIV testing, and 23 (40%) performed any HIV testing. Counseling for HIV testing was conducted for 815/4389 (19%) new clients, and HIV testing was performed for 420/4389 (10%). Clinics without trained HIV testing providers uniformly did not conduct HIV counseling and/or testing (0/12 [0%]), while 27/46 (59%) of clinics with ≥1 provider performed some HTC (p < 0.001). In the subset of 46 clinics with ≥1 trained HIV testing provider, correlates of performing HTC included being a public versus non-public clinic (PR 1.70 95%CI 1.01-2.88), and having an HIV comprehensive care center (CCC) onsite (PR 2.05, 95%CI 1.04-4.06). CONCLUSION: Trained HIV testing providers are crucial for FP clinics to perform any HTC. Approaches are needed to increase routine HTC in FP clinics including staffing changes and/or linkages with other testing services (in standalone VCT services or lab facilities) in order to improve the implementation of existing national guidelines. A future cluster randomized trial is planned to test an implementation strategy, the Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach (SAIA) to increase HTC in FP clinics.

Results of a cluster randomized trial testing the Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach to increase cervical cancer screening in family planning clinics in Mombasa County, Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in Kenyan women. Integrating cervical cancer screening into family planning (FP) clinics is a promising strategy to improve health for reproductive-aged women. The objective of this cluster randomized trial was to test the efficacy of an implementation strategy, the Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach (SAIA), as a tool to increase cervical cancer screening in FP clinics in Mombasa County, Kenya. METHODS: Twenty FP clinics in Mombasa County were randomized 1:1 to SAIA versus usual procedures. SAIA has five steps: (1) cascade analysis tool to understand the cascade and identify inefficiencies, (2) sequential process flow mapping to identify bottlenecks, (3) develop and implement workflow modifications (micro-interventions) to address identified bottlenecks, (4) assess the micro-intervention in the cascade analysis tool, and (5) repeat the cycle. Prevalence ratios were calculated using Poisson regression with robust standard errors to compare the proportion of visits where women were screened for cervical cancer in SAIA clinics compared to control clinics. RESULTS: In the primary intent-to-treat analysis in the last quarter of the trial, 2.5% (37/1507) of visits with eligible FP clients at intervention facilities included cervical cancer screening compared to 3.7% (66/1793) in control clinics (prevalence ratio [PR] 0.67, 95% CI 0.45-1.00). When adjusted for having at least one provider trained to perform cervical cancer screening at baseline, there was no significant difference between screening in intervention clinics compared to control clinics (adjusted PR 1.14, 95% CI 0.74-1.75). CONCLUSIONS: The primary analysis did not show an effect on cervical cancer screening. However, the COVID-19 pandemic and a healthcare worker strike likely impacted SAIA's implementation with significant disruptions in FP care delivery during the trial. While SAIA's data-informed decision-making and clinic-derived solutions are likely important, future work should directly study the mechanisms through which SAIA operates and the influence of contextual factors on implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03514459. Registered on April 19, 2018.

Results of a cluster randomized trial testing the systems analysis and improvement approach to increase HIV testing in family planning clinics.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test an implementation strategy, the Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach (SAIA), to increase rates of HIV testing and counseling (HTC) in family planning clinics in Mombasa, Kenya. DESIGN: A cluster randomized trial. METHODS: Twenty-four family planning clinics were randomized 1 : 1 to implementing SAIA versus usual procedures. Study staff implemented monthly SAIA cycles with family planning clinic staff for 12 months. SAIA has five steps. Step 1 uses a "cascade analysis' tool to quantify the number of individuals who complete each step of a process. Step 2 involves sequential process flow mapping to identify modifiable bottlenecks in the system. Step 3 develops and implements workflow modifications to address bottlenecks. Step 4 assesses impact of the modification by recalculating the cascade analysis. Step 5 repeats the cycle. The primary outcome was the proportion of new family planning clients tested for HIV during the last quarter of the trial. RESULTS: During the last 3 months of the trial, 85% (740/868) of new family planning clients were counseled for HIV in intervention clinics compared with 67% (1036/1542) in control clinics (prevalence rate ratio [PRR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-1.30). Forty-two percent (364/859) of family planning clients were tested for HIV at intervention clinics compared with 32% (485/1521) at control clinics (PRR 1.33, 95% CI 1.16-1.52). CONCLUSION: SAIA led to a significant increase in HIV testing in family planning clinics in Mombasa. Integrating routine HTC into family planning clinics is a promising strategy to achieve the UNAIDS goal of 95% of people living with HIV being aware of their status.

Assessing the sustainability of the Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach to increase HIV testing in family planning clinics in Mombasa, Kenya: results of a cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: In Kenya, HIV incidence is highest among reproductive-age women. A key HIV mitigation strategy is the integration of HIV testing and counseling (HTC) into family planning services, but successful integration remains problematic. We conducted a cluster-randomized trial using the Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach (SAIA) to identify and address bottlenecks in HTC integration in family planning clinics in Mombasa County, Kenya. This trial (1) assessed the efficacy of this approach and (2) examined if SAIA could be sustainably incorporated into the Department of Health Services (DOHS) programmatic activities. In Stage 1, SAIA was effective at increasing HTC uptake. Here, we present Stage 2, which assessed if SAIA delivery would be sustained when implemented by the Mombasa County DOHS and if high HTC performance would continue to be observed. METHODS: Twenty-four family planning clinics in Mombasa County were randomized to either the SAIA implementation strategy or standard care. In Stage 1, the study staff conducted all study activities. In Stage 2, we transitioned SAIA implementation to DOHS staff and compared HTC in the intervention versus control clinics 1-year post-transition. Study staff provided training and minimal support to DOHS implementers and collected quarterly HTC outcome data. Interviews were conducted with family planning clinic staff to assess barriers and facilitators to sustaining HTC delivery. RESULTS: Only 39% (56/144) of planned SAIA visits were completed, largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a prolonged healthcare worker strike. In the final study quarter, 81.6% (160/196) of new clients at intervention facilities received HIV counseling, compared to 22.4% (55/245) in control facilities (prevalence rate ratio [PRR]=3.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.68-4.94). HIV testing was conducted with 60.5% (118/195) of new family planning clients in intervention clinics, compared to 18.8% (45/240) in control clinics (PRR=3.23, 95% CI=2.29-4.55). Interviews with family planning clinic staff suggested institutionalization contributed to sustained HTC delivery, facilitated by low implementation strategy complexity and continued oversight. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention clinics demonstrated sustained improvement in HTC after SAIA was transitioned to DOHS leadership despite wide-scale healthcare disruptions and incomplete delivery of the implementation strategy. These findings suggest that system interventions may be sustained when integrated into DOHS programmatic activities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02994355) registered on 16 December 2016.

Qualitative evaluation of the Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach as a strategy to increase HIV testing in family planning clinics using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Implementation Outcomes Framework.

BACKGROUND: Significant gaps remain in HIV testing and counseling (HTC) in family planning (FP) clinics. To address these gaps, our group tested an implementation strategy called the Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach (SAIA), an evidenced-based multi-component implementation strategy focused on improving entire care cascades. In a cluster randomized trial of 24 FP clinics in Mombasa County, Kenya, SAIA led to a significant increase in HTC in intervention clinics compared to control clinics. The objective of this manuscript was to evaluate SAIA using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and assess the Implementation Outcomes Framework outcomes of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. METHODS: This qualitative assessment was nested within the cluster-randomized trial. Data collection included questionnaires to assess modifiable and non-modifiable health system factors related to HTC and in-depth interviews to query clinic norms, priorities, communication strategies, and readiness for change. The primary outcomes of interest were feasibility, appropriateness, and acceptability of SAIA. Data on inner setting and structural characteristics of FP clinics were collected to inform how context may impact outcomes. All interviews were recorded and analyzed using a rapid assessment approach. RESULTS: Of the 12 intervention clinics, 6 (50%) were public facilities. Availability of resources varied by clinic. Most clinics had a positive implementation climate, engaged leadership, and access to resources and information. While not all clinics identified HTC as a clinic priority, most reported a strong culture of embracing change and recognition of the importance of HIV testing within FP clinics. Interviews highlighted very high acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of SAIA. The implementation strategy was not complicated and fit well into existing clinic processes. In particular, staff appreciated that SAIA allowed clinic staff to generate contextually relevant solutions that they implemented. CONCLUSIONS: SAIA was implemented in FP clinics of varying sizes, capacity, and management support and was found to be acceptable, appropriate, and feasible. The agency that clinic staff felt in proposing and implementing their own solutions was likely part of SAIA's success. We anticipate this will continue to be a mechanism of SAIA's success when it is scaled up to more clinics in future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02994355) registered 16 December 2016.