Cargando…
Spending of HIV resources in Asia and Eastern Europe: systematic review reveals the need to shift funding allocations towards priority populations
INTRODUCTION: It is increasingly important to prioritize the most cost-effective HIV interventions. We sought to summarize the evidence on which types of interventions provide the best value for money in regions with concentrated HIV epidemics. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of peer-revie...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
International AIDS Society
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3936108/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24572053 http://dx.doi.org/10.7448/IAS.17.1.18822 |
Sumario: | INTRODUCTION: It is increasingly important to prioritize the most cost-effective HIV interventions. We sought to summarize the evidence on which types of interventions provide the best value for money in regions with concentrated HIV epidemics. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature reporting measurements of cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit for HIV/AIDS interventions in Asia and Eastern Europe. We also collated HIV/AIDS spending assessment data from case-study countries in the region. RESULTS: We identified 91 studies for inclusion, 47 of which were from peer-reviewed journals. Generally, in concentrated settings, prevention of mother-to-child transmission programmes and prevention programmes targeting people who inject drugs and sex workers had lower incremental cost-effectiveness ratios than programmes aimed at the general population. The few studies evaluating programmes targeting men who have sex with men indicate moderate cost-effectiveness. Collation of prevention programme spending data from 12 countries in the region (none of which had generalized epidemics) indicated that resources for the general population/non-targeted was greater than 30% for eight countries and greater than 50% for five countries. CONCLUSIONS: There is a misalignment between national spending on HIV/AIDS responses and the most affected populations across the region. In concentrated epidemics, scarce funding should be directed more towards most-at-risk populations. Reaching consensus on general principles of cost-effectiveness of programmes by epidemic settings is difficult due to inconsistent evaluation approaches. Adopting a standard costing, impact evaluation, benefits calculation, analysis and reporting framework would enable cross comparisons and improve HIV resource prioritization and allocation. |
---|