The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2024
Evidence Gaps in Economic Evaluations of HIV Interventions Targeting Young People: A Systematic Review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zimmerman Armand, Fawole Ayodamope, Shahid Minahil, Dow Dorothy, Ogbuoji Osondu
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Young people living with HIV (YPLWH) face the burden of navigating the unique physical, psychological, and social challenges of adolescence while coping with a stigmatized infectious disease that requires lifelong care. Consequently, YPLWH experience worse HIV outcomes compared to children and adults. This systematic review seeks to collate evidence on the health and economic impact of HIV interventions targeting YPLWH and to identify gaps in the available evidence that may inform future economic evaluations of interventions for YPLWH.
METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Global Index Medicus databases for peer-reviewed articles published through April 24, 2022 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022356244). Our inclusion criteria encompassed economic evaluations of HIV interventions that report health and economic outcomes among individuals ages 10-24 years. Three investigators screened articles at the title, abstract, and full-text levels. The data were extracted in accordance with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022.
RESULTS: Of the 3,735 unique articles retrieved through our search, 32 met our inclusion criteria. Of these 32 articles, 8 (25%) evaluated a behavioral, educational, or financial intervention, 6 (19%) voluntary medical male circumcision, 5 (16%) HIV screening or testing, 4 (13%) pre-exposure prophylaxis, 3 (9%) a hypothetical HIV vaccine, 2 (6%) antiretroviral therapy, 1 (3%) condom distribution, and 3 (9%) a combination of interventions. Twenty-two studies (69%) focused on Africa, 9 (28%) on North America, and 1 (3%) on Europe. Thirty studies (94%) were cost-effectiveness analyses and 2 (6%) were cost-utility analyses. Of the intervention types captured by this review, most were deemed cost-saving or cost-effective. Only two studies-one evaluating a financial intervention and one evaluating HIV testing-concluded that the intervention was not cost-effective.
DISCUSSION: Evidence presented by this review suggests that investments in HIV prevention and treatment for young people can be a cost-effective, and sometimes cost-saving, solution to combating the global HIV epidemic. However, additional evaluations of HIV interventions targeting young people, which adhere to standardized reporting practices, are needed to permit comparability of cost-effectiveness outcomes between interventions and settings.
METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Global Index Medicus databases for peer-reviewed articles published through April 24, 2022 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022356244). Our inclusion criteria encompassed economic evaluations of HIV interventions that report health and economic outcomes among individuals ages 10-24 years. Three investigators screened articles at the title, abstract, and full-text levels. The data were extracted in accordance with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022.
RESULTS: Of the 3,735 unique articles retrieved through our search, 32 met our inclusion criteria. Of these 32 articles, 8 (25%) evaluated a behavioral, educational, or financial intervention, 6 (19%) voluntary medical male circumcision, 5 (16%) HIV screening or testing, 4 (13%) pre-exposure prophylaxis, 3 (9%) a hypothetical HIV vaccine, 2 (6%) antiretroviral therapy, 1 (3%) condom distribution, and 3 (9%) a combination of interventions. Twenty-two studies (69%) focused on Africa, 9 (28%) on North America, and 1 (3%) on Europe. Thirty studies (94%) were cost-effectiveness analyses and 2 (6%) were cost-utility analyses. Of the intervention types captured by this review, most were deemed cost-saving or cost-effective. Only two studies-one evaluating a financial intervention and one evaluating HIV testing-concluded that the intervention was not cost-effective.
DISCUSSION: Evidence presented by this review suggests that investments in HIV prevention and treatment for young people can be a cost-effective, and sometimes cost-saving, solution to combating the global HIV epidemic. However, additional evaluations of HIV interventions targeting young people, which adhere to standardized reporting practices, are needed to permit comparability of cost-effectiveness outcomes between interventions and settings.