Cost-effectiveness of integrated HIV prevention and family planning services for Zambian couples

Integration measurement and its applications in low- and middle-income country health systems: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Despite growing interest in and commitment to integration, or integrated care, the concept is ill-defined and the resulting evidence base fragmented, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Underlying this challenge is a lack of coherent approaches to measure the extent of integration and how this influences desired outcomes. The aim of this scoping review is to identify measurement approaches for integration in LMICs and map them for future use.

METHODS

Arksey and O'Malley's framework for scoping reviews was followed. We conducted a systematic search of peer-reviewed literature measuring integration in LMICs across three databases and screened identified papers by predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A modified version of the Rainbow Model for Integrated Care guided charting and analysis of the data.

RESULTS

We included 99 studies. Studies were concentrated in the Africa region and most frequently focused on the integration of HIV care with other services. A range of definitions and methods were identified, with no single approach for the measurement of integration dominating the literature. Measurement of clinical integration was the most common, with indicators focused on measuring receipt of two or more services provided at a single point of time. Organizational and professional integration indicators were focused on inter- and intra-organizational communication, collaboration, coordination, and continuity of care, while functional integration measured common information systems or patient records. Gaps were identified in measuring systems and normative integration. Few tools were validated or publicly available for future use.

CONCLUSION

We identified a wide range of recent approaches used to measure integration in LMICs. Our findings underscore continued challenges with lack of conceptual cohesion and fragmentation which limits how integration is understood in practice.

An Evaluation of an Enhanced Model of Integrating Family Planning Into HIV Treatment Services in Zambia, April 2018-June 2019

BACKGROUND

We designed and implemented an enhanced model of integrating family planning (FP) into existing HIV treatment services at 6 health facilities in Lusaka, Zambia.

METHODS

The enhanced model included improving FP documentation within HIV monitoring systems, training HIV providers in FP services, offering contraceptives within the HIV clinic, and facilitated referral to community-based distributors. Independent samples of women living with HIV (WLHIV) aged ≥16 years were interviewed before and after intervention and their clinical data abstracted from medical charts. Logistic regression models were used to assess differences in key outcomes between the 2 periods.

RESULTS

A total of 629 WLHIV were interviewed preintervention and 684 postintervention. Current FP use increased from 35% to 49% comparing the pre- and postintervention periods ( P = 0.0025). Increased use was seen for injectables (15% vs. 25%, P < 0.0001) and implants (5% vs. 8%, P > 0.05) but not for pills (10% vs. 8%, P < 0.05) or intrauterine devices (1% vs. 1%, P > 0.05). Dual method use (contraceptive + barrier method) increased from 8% to 18% ( P = 0.0003), whereas unmet need for FP decreased from 59% to 46% ( P = 0.0003). Receipt of safer conception counseling increased from 27% to 39% ( P < 0.0001). The estimated total intervention cost was $83,293 (2018 USD).

CONCLUSIONS

Our model of FP/HIV integration significantly increased the number of WLHIV reporting current FP and dual method use, a met need for FP, and safer conception counseling. These results support continued efforts to integrate FP and HIV services to improve women's access to sexual and reproductive health services.

The cost of implementing the Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach for a cluster randomized trial integrating HIV testing into family planning services in Mombasa County, Kenya

BACKGROUND

Although HIV testing in family planning (FP) clinics is a promising approach for engaging women in HIV treatment and prevention services, HIV testing rates are low in FP clinics in Kenya. In 2018, a cluster randomized trial was implemented in Mombasa, Kenya applying the Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach (SAIA) to integrate HIV testing into FP services (1K24HD088229-01). We estimated the incremental costs and explored cost drivers of the FP HIV SAIA implementation in Mombasa, Kenya.

METHODS

We conducted a costing evaluation from the payer perspective for the FP HIV SAIA randomized control trial. We identified relevant activities for the intervention including start-up, training, research and FP HIV SAIA. We estimated activity time burden using a time-and motion study. We derived unit costs through staff interviews and programmatic budgets. We present cost estimates for two different scenarios: as-implemented including research and projected costs for a Ministry of Health-supported intervention. All costs are reported in 2018 USD.

RESULTS

For an annual program output of 36,086 HIV tests administered to new FP clients, we estimated the total annual program cost to be $91,994 with an average cost per new FP client served of $2.55. Personnel and HIV rapid testing kits comprised 55% and 21% of programmatic costs, respectively. Assuming no changes to program outputs and with efficiency gains under the MOH scenario, the estimated cost per new FP client served decreased to $1.30 with a programmatic cost reduction of 49%.

CONCLUSION

FP HIV SAIA is a low-cost and flexible implementation strategy for facilitating integrated delivery of HIV testing alongside FP services. Although cost implications of the FP HIV SAIA intervention must continue to be evaluated over time, these findings provide context-specific cost data useful for budget planning and decision-making regarding intervention delivery and expansion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered on December 15, 2016, with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02994355).