Perinatal HIV transmission and the cost-effectiveness of screening at 14 weeks gestation, at the onset of labour and the rapid testing of infants

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Preventing HIV transmission is a worldwide public health issue. Vertical transmission of HIV from a mother can be prevented with diagnosis and treatment, but screening incurs cost. The U.S. Virgin Islands follows the mainland policy on antenatal screening for HIV even though HIV prevalence is higher and rates of antenatal care are lower. This leads to many cases of vertically transmitted HIV. A better policy is required for the U.S. Virgin Islands.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The objective of this research was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of relevant HIV screening strategies for the antenatal population in the U.S. Virgin Islands. An economic model was used to evaluate the incremental costs and incremental health benefits of nine different combinations of perinatal HIV screening strategies as compared to existing practice from a societal perspective. Three opportunities for screening were considered in isolation and in combination: by 14 weeks gestation, at the onset of labor, or of the infant after birth. The main outcome measure was the cost per life year gained (LYG).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Results indicate that all strategies would produce benefits and save costs. Universal screening by 14 weeks gestation and screening the infant after birth is the recommended strategy, with cost savings of $1,122,787 and health benefits of 310 LYG. Limitations include the limited research on the variations in screening acceptance of screening based on specimen sample, race and economic status. The benefits of screening after 14 weeks gestation but before the onset of labor were also not addressed.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study highlights the benefits of offering screening at different opportunities and repeat screening and raises the question of generalizing these results to other countries with similar characteristics.</p

'Issues of equity are also issues of rights': Lessons from experiences in Southern Africa

BACKGROUND: Human rights approaches to health have been criticized as antithetical to equity, principally because they are seen to prioritise rights of individuals at the expense of the interests of groups, a core tenet of public health. The objective of this study was to identify how human rights approaches can promote health equity. METHODS: The Network on Equity in Health in Southern Africa undertook an exploration of three regional case studies – antiretroviral access, patient rights charters and civic organization for health. A combination of archival reviews and stakeholder interviews were complemented with a literature review to provide a theoretical framework for the empirical evidence. RESULTS: Critical success factors for equity are the importance of rights approaches addressing the full spectrum from civil and political, through to socio-economic rights, as well as the need to locate rights in a group context. Human rights approaches succeed in achieving health equity when coupled with community engagement in ways that reinforce community capacity, particularly when strengthening the collective agency of its most vulnerable groups. Additionally, human rights approaches provide opportunities for mobilising resources outside the health sector, and must aim to address the public-private divide at local, national and international levels. CONCLUSION: Where it is clear that rights approaches are predicated upon understanding the need to prioritize vulnerable groups and where the way rights are operationalised recognizes the role of agency on the part of those most affected in realising their socio-economic rights, human rights approaches appear to offer powerful tools to support social justice and health equity

Physician privacy concerns when disclosing patient data for public health purposes during a pandemic influenza outbreak

Background: Privacy concerns by providers have been a barrier to disclosing patient information for public health\ud purposes. This is the case even for mandated notifiable disease reporting. In the context of a pandemic it has been\ud argued that the public good should supersede an individual’s right to privacy. The precise nature of these provider\ud privacy concerns, and whether they are diluted in the context of a pandemic are not known. Our objective was to\ud understand the privacy barriers which could potentially influence family physicians’ reporting of patient-level\ud surveillance data to public health agencies during the Fall 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza outbreak.\ud Methods: Thirty seven family doctors participated in a series of five focus groups between October 29-31 2009.\ud They also completed a survey about the data they were willing to disclose to public health units. Descriptive\ud statistics were used to summarize the amount of patient detail the participants were willing to disclose, factors that\ud would facilitate data disclosure, and the consensus on those factors. The analysis of the qualitative data was based\ud on grounded theory.\ud Results: The family doctors were reluctant to disclose patient data to public health units. This was due to concerns\ud about the extent to which public health agencies are dependable to protect health information (trusting beliefs),\ud and the possibility of loss due to disclosing health information (risk beliefs). We identified six specific actions that\ud public health units can take which would affect these beliefs, and potentially increase the willingness to disclose\ud patient information for public health purposes.\ud Conclusions: The uncertainty surrounding a pandemic of a new strain of influenza has not changed the privacy\ud concerns of physicians about disclosing patient data. It is important to address these concerns to ensure reliable\ud reporting during future outbreaks.University of Ottawa Open Access Author Fun