Cargando…

Optimizing viral load testing access for the last mile: Geospatial cost model for point of care instrument placement

INTRODUCTION: Viral load (VL) monitoring programs have been scaled up rapidly, but are now facing the challenge of providing access to the most remote facilities (the “last mile”). For the hardest-to-reach facilities in Zambia, we compared the cost of placing point of care (POC) viral load instrumen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Girdwood, Sarah J., Nichols, Brooke E., Moyo, Crispin, Crompton, Thomas, Chimhamhiwa, Dorman, Rosen, Sydney
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6709899/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31449559
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221586
_version_ 1783446259052314624
author Girdwood, Sarah J.
Nichols, Brooke E.
Moyo, Crispin
Crompton, Thomas
Chimhamhiwa, Dorman
Rosen, Sydney
author_facet Girdwood, Sarah J.
Nichols, Brooke E.
Moyo, Crispin
Crompton, Thomas
Chimhamhiwa, Dorman
Rosen, Sydney
author_sort Girdwood, Sarah J.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Viral load (VL) monitoring programs have been scaled up rapidly, but are now facing the challenge of providing access to the most remote facilities (the “last mile”). For the hardest-to-reach facilities in Zambia, we compared the cost of placing point of care (POC) viral load instruments at or near facilities to the cost of an expanded sample transportation network (STN) to deliver samples to centralized laboratories. METHODS: We extended a previously described geospatial model for Zambia that first optimized a STN for centralized laboratories for 90% of estimated viral load volumes. Amongst the remaining 10% of volumes, facilities were identified as candidates for POC placement, and then instrument placement was optimized such that access and instrument utilization is maximized. We evaluated the full cost per test under three scenarios: 1) POC placement at all facilities identified for POC; 2)an optimized combination of both on-site POC placement and placement at facilities acting as POC hubs; and 3) integration into the centralized STN to allow use of centralized laboratories. RESULTS: For the hardest-to-reach facilities, optimal POC placement covered a quarter of HIV-treating facilities. Scenario 2 resulted in a cost per test of $39.58, 6% less than the cost per test of scenario 1, $41.81. This is due to increased POC instrument utilization in scenario 2 where facilities can act as POC hubs. Scenario 3 was the most costly at $53.40 per test, due to high transport costs under the centralized model ($36 per test compared to $12 per test in scenario 2). CONCLUSIONS: POC VL testing may reduce the costs of expanding access to the hardest-to-reach populations, despite the cost of equipment and low patient volumes. An optimal combination of both on-site placement and the use of POC hubs can reduce the cost per test by 6–35% by reducing transport costs and increasing instrument utilization.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6709899
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67098992019-09-10 Optimizing viral load testing access for the last mile: Geospatial cost model for point of care instrument placement Girdwood, Sarah J. Nichols, Brooke E. Moyo, Crispin Crompton, Thomas Chimhamhiwa, Dorman Rosen, Sydney PLoS One Research Article INTRODUCTION: Viral load (VL) monitoring programs have been scaled up rapidly, but are now facing the challenge of providing access to the most remote facilities (the “last mile”). For the hardest-to-reach facilities in Zambia, we compared the cost of placing point of care (POC) viral load instruments at or near facilities to the cost of an expanded sample transportation network (STN) to deliver samples to centralized laboratories. METHODS: We extended a previously described geospatial model for Zambia that first optimized a STN for centralized laboratories for 90% of estimated viral load volumes. Amongst the remaining 10% of volumes, facilities were identified as candidates for POC placement, and then instrument placement was optimized such that access and instrument utilization is maximized. We evaluated the full cost per test under three scenarios: 1) POC placement at all facilities identified for POC; 2)an optimized combination of both on-site POC placement and placement at facilities acting as POC hubs; and 3) integration into the centralized STN to allow use of centralized laboratories. RESULTS: For the hardest-to-reach facilities, optimal POC placement covered a quarter of HIV-treating facilities. Scenario 2 resulted in a cost per test of $39.58, 6% less than the cost per test of scenario 1, $41.81. This is due to increased POC instrument utilization in scenario 2 where facilities can act as POC hubs. Scenario 3 was the most costly at $53.40 per test, due to high transport costs under the centralized model ($36 per test compared to $12 per test in scenario 2). CONCLUSIONS: POC VL testing may reduce the costs of expanding access to the hardest-to-reach populations, despite the cost of equipment and low patient volumes. An optimal combination of both on-site placement and the use of POC hubs can reduce the cost per test by 6–35% by reducing transport costs and increasing instrument utilization. Public Library of Science 2019-08-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6709899/ /pubmed/31449559 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221586 Text en © 2019 Girdwood et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Girdwood, Sarah J.
Nichols, Brooke E.
Moyo, Crispin
Crompton, Thomas
Chimhamhiwa, Dorman
Rosen, Sydney
Optimizing viral load testing access for the last mile: Geospatial cost model for point of care instrument placement
title Optimizing viral load testing access for the last mile: Geospatial cost model for point of care instrument placement
title_full Optimizing viral load testing access for the last mile: Geospatial cost model for point of care instrument placement
title_fullStr Optimizing viral load testing access for the last mile: Geospatial cost model for point of care instrument placement
title_full_unstemmed Optimizing viral load testing access for the last mile: Geospatial cost model for point of care instrument placement
title_short Optimizing viral load testing access for the last mile: Geospatial cost model for point of care instrument placement
title_sort optimizing viral load testing access for the last mile: geospatial cost model for point of care instrument placement
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6709899/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31449559
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221586
work_keys_str_mv AT girdwoodsarahj optimizingviralloadtestingaccessforthelastmilegeospatialcostmodelforpointofcareinstrumentplacement
AT nicholsbrookee optimizingviralloadtestingaccessforthelastmilegeospatialcostmodelforpointofcareinstrumentplacement
AT moyocrispin optimizingviralloadtestingaccessforthelastmilegeospatialcostmodelforpointofcareinstrumentplacement
AT cromptonthomas optimizingviralloadtestingaccessforthelastmilegeospatialcostmodelforpointofcareinstrumentplacement
AT chimhamhiwadorman optimizingviralloadtestingaccessforthelastmilegeospatialcostmodelforpointofcareinstrumentplacement
AT rosensydney optimizingviralloadtestingaccessforthelastmilegeospatialcostmodelforpointofcareinstrumentplacement