Criteria for priority setting of HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand: a discrete choice experiment

Contains fulltext : 87849.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Although a sizeable budget is available for HIV/AIDS control in Thailand, there will never be enough resources to implement every programme for all target groups at full scale. As such, there is a need to prioritize HIV/AIDS programmes. However, as of yet, there is no evidence on the criteria that should guide the priority setting of HIV/AIDS programmes in Thailand, including their relative importance. Also, it is not clear whether different stakeholders share similar preferences. METHODS: Criteria for priority setting of HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand were identified in group discussions with policy makers, people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), and community members (i.e. village health volunteers (VHVs)). On the basis of these, discrete choice experiments were designed and administered among 28 policy makers, 74 PLWHA, and 50 VHVs. RESULTS: In order of importance, policy makers expressed a preference for interventions that are highly effective, that are preventive of nature (as compared to care and treatment), that are based on strong scientific evidence, that target high risk groups (as compared to teenagers, adults, or children), and that target both genders (rather than only men or women). PLWHA and VHVs had similar preferences but the former group expressed a strong preference for care and treatment for AIDS patients. CONCLUSIONS: The study has identified criteria for priority setting of HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand, and revealed that different stakeholders have different preferences vis-a-vis these criteria. This could be used for a broad ranking of interventions, and as such as a basis for more detailed priority setting, taking into account also qualitative criteria

Which interventions offer best value for money in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease?

BackgroundDespite many decades of declining mortality rates in the Western world, cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death worldwide. In this research we evaluate the optimal mix of lifestyle, pharmaceutical and population-wide interventions for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.Methods and FindingsIn a discrete time Markov model we simulate the ischaemic heart disease and stroke outcomes and cost impacts of intervention over the lifetime of all Australian men and women, aged 35 to 84 years, who have never experienced a heart disease or stroke event. Best value for money is achieved by mandating moderate limits on salt in the manufacture of bread, margarine and cereal. A combination of diuretic, calcium channel blocker, ACE inhibitor and low-cost statin, for everyone with at least 5% five-year risk of cardiovascular disease, is also cost-effective, but lifestyle interventions aiming to change risky dietary and exercise behaviours are extremely poor value for money and have little population health benefit.ConclusionsThere is huge potential for improving efficiency in cardiovascular disease prevention in Australia. A tougher approach from Government to mandating limits on salt in processed foods and reducing excessive statin prices, and a shift away from lifestyle counselling to more efficient absolute risk-based prescription of preventive drugs, could cut health care costs while improving population health.<br /

Prioritizing HIV/AIDS prevention strategies in Bandung, Indonesia: A cost analysis of three different HIV/AIDS interventions.

BackgroundIndonesia has one of the fastest growing HIV epidemics in Asia, which mainly concentrates within risk groups. Several strategies are available to combat this epidemic, like outreach to Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) and transgender, Harm Reduction Community Meetings (HRCMs) for Injecting Drug Users (IDUs), and Information, Education and Communication (IEC) programs at Maternal & Child Health Posts (MCHPs). Reliable cost data are currently not present, hampering HIV/AIDS priority setting. The aim of this study thus is to assess the societal costs of outreach programs to MSM and transgender, HRCMs for IDUs and IEC at MCHPs in Bandung, Indonesia in 2016.MethodsThe societal costs were collected in Bandung from April until May 2017. Health care costs were collected by interviewing stakeholders, using a micro-costing approach. Non-health care costs were determined by conducting surveys within the target groups of the interventions.ResultsThe societal costs of the outreach program were US$347,199.03 in 2016 and US$ 73.72 per reached individual. Moreover, the cost of HRCM for IDUs were US$48,618.31 in 2016 and US$ 365.55 per community meeting. For the IEC program at MCHPs, US$337.13 was paid in 2016 and the cost per visitor were US$ 0.51.ConclusionThis study provides valuable insights in the costs of outreach to MSM and transgender, HRCMs for IDUs and IEC at MCHPs. Policy makers can use these results in setting priorities within Indonesia. Data on effectiveness of interventions is necessary to make conclusive statements regarding cost-effectiveness and priority of interventions

Mapping of multiple criteria for priority setting of health interventions: an aid for decision makers

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In rationing decisions in health, many criteria like costs, effectiveness, equity and feasibility concerns play a role. These criteria stem from different disciplines that all aim to inform health care rationing decisions, but a single underlying concept that incorporates all criteria does not yet exist. Therefore, we aim to develop a conceptual mapping of criteria, based on the World Health Organization’s <it>Health Systems Performance</it> and <it>Health Systems Building Blocks</it> frameworks. This map can be an aid to decision makers to identify the relevant criteria for priority setting in their specific context.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We made an inventory of all possible criteria for priority setting on the basis of literature review. We categorized the criteria according to both health system frameworks that spell out a country’s health system goals and input. We reason that the criteria that decision makers use in priority setting exercises are a direct manifestation of this.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our map includes thirty-one criteria that are distributed among five categories that reflect the goals of a health system (i.e. to improve level of health, fair distribution of health, responsiveness, social & financial risk protection and efficiency) and leadership/governance one category that reflects feasibiliy based on the health system building blocks (i.e. service delivery, health care workforce , information, medical products, vaccines & technologies, financing and).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This conceptual mapping of criteria, based on well-established health system frameworks, will further develop the field of priority setting by assisting decision makers in the identification of multiple criteria for selection of health interventions.</p