This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Research
Weiming Tang
Southern Medical University Guangzhou
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Introduction: HIV self-testing (HIVST) is effective in improving the uptake of HIV testing among key populations. Complementary data on the cost-effectiveness of HIVST is critical for planning and scaling up HIVST. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a community-based organization (CBO)-led HIVST model implemented in China.
Method: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted by comparing a CBO-led HIVST model with a CBO-led facility-based HIV rapid diagnostics testing (HIV-RDT) model. The full economic cost, including fixed and variable cost, from a health provider perspective using a micro costing approach was estimated. We determined the cost-effectiveness of these two HIV testing models over a two year time horizon (i.e. duration of the programs), and reported costs using US dollars (2020).
Results: From January 2017 to December 2018, a total of 4,633 men tested in the HIVST model, and 1,780 men tested in the HIV-RDT model. The total number of new diagnosis was 155 for HIVST and 126 for the HIV-RDT model; the HIV test positivity was 3.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.8-3.9) for the HIVST model and 7.1% (95% CI: 5.9-8.4) for the HIV-RDT model. The mean cost per person tested was $14.57 for HIVST and $24.74 for HIV-RDT. However, the mean cost per diagnosed was higher for HIVST ($435.52) compared with $349.44 for HIV-RDT.
Conclusion: Our study confirms that compared to facility-based HIV-RDT, a community-based organization led HIVST program could have a cheaper mean cost per MSM tested for HIV in China. Better targeting of high-risk individuals would further improve the cost-effectiveness of HIVST.
Keywords
Cost-effectiveness analysis, facility-based HIV testing, HIV self-testing, Men who have sex with men (MSM)
Figure 1
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 23 Dec, 2020
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Health Economics & Outcomes Research
Learn more about our company.
This is a preprint. It has not completed peer review.
Research
Weiming Tang
Southern Medical University Guangzhou
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 23 Dec, 2020
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Health Economics & Outcomes Research
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Introduction: HIV self-testing (HIVST) is effective in improving the uptake of HIV testing among key populations. Complementary data on the cost-effectiveness of HIVST is critical for planning and scaling up HIVST. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a community-based organization (CBO)-led HIVST model implemented in China.
Method: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted by comparing a CBO-led HIVST model with a CBO-led facility-based HIV rapid diagnostics testing (HIV-RDT) model. The full economic cost, including fixed and variable cost, from a health provider perspective using a micro costing approach was estimated. We determined the cost-effectiveness of these two HIV testing models over a two year time horizon (i.e. duration of the programs), and reported costs using US dollars (2020).
Results: From January 2017 to December 2018, a total of 4,633 men tested in the HIVST model, and 1,780 men tested in the HIV-RDT model. The total number of new diagnosis was 155 for HIVST and 126 for the HIV-RDT model; the HIV test positivity was 3.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.8-3.9) for the HIVST model and 7.1% (95% CI: 5.9-8.4) for the HIV-RDT model. The mean cost per person tested was $14.57 for HIVST and $24.74 for HIV-RDT. However, the mean cost per diagnosed was higher for HIVST ($435.52) compared with $349.44 for HIV-RDT.
Conclusion: Our study confirms that compared to facility-based HIV-RDT, a community-based organization led HIVST program could have a cheaper mean cost per MSM tested for HIV in China. Better targeting of high-risk individuals would further improve the cost-effectiveness of HIVST.
Figure 1
Loading...