Search

A retrospective facility-based costing study was undertaken to estimate the comparative cost per visit of five integrated sexual and reproductive health and HIV (human immuno-deficiency virus) services (provider perspective) within five clinic sites. These five clinics were part of four service delivery models: Non-governmental-organisation (NGO) directly managed model (Chitungwiza and New Africa House sites), NGO partner managed site (Mutare site), private-public-partnership (PPP) model (Chitungwiza Profam Clinic), and NGO directly managed outreach (operating from New Africa House site. In addition client cost exit interviews (client perspective) were conducted among 856 female clients exiting integrated services at three of the sites. Our costing approach involved first a facility bottom-up costing exercise (February to April 2015), conducted to quantify and value each resource input required to provide individual SRH and HIV services. Secondly overhead financial expenditures were allocated top-down from central office to sites and then respective integrated service based on pre-defined allocation factors derived from both the site facility observations and programme data for the prior 12 months. Costs were assessed in 2015 United States dollars (USD). Costs were assessed for HIV testing and counselling, screening and treatment of sexually transmitted infections, tuberculosis screening with smear microscopy, family planning, and cervical cancer screening and treatment employing visual inspection with acetic acid and cervicography and cryotherapy. Variability in costs per visit was evident across the models being highest for cervical cancer screening and cryotherapy (range: US$6.98-US$49.66). HIV testing and counselling showed least variability (range; US$10.96-US$16.28). In general the PPP model offered integrated services at the lowest unit costs whereas the partner managed site was highest. Significant client costs remain despite availability of integrated sexual and reproductive health and HIV services free of charge in our Zimbabwe study setting. Situating services closer to communities, incentives, transport reimbursements, reducing waiting times and co-location of sexual and reproductive health and HIV services may help minimise impact of client costs.

Abstract Background There is limited data on client preferences for different HIV self-testing (HIVST) and provider-delivered testing options and associated factors. We explored client preferences for oral-fluid-based self-testing (OFBST), blood-based self-testing (BBST) and provider-delivered blood-based testing (PDBBT) among different populations. Methods At clinics providing HIV testing services to general populations (1 urban, 1 rural clinic), men seeking voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC, 1 clinic), and female sex workers (FSW, 1 clinic), clients had the option to test using OFBST, BBST or PDBBT. A pre-test questionnaire collected information on demographics and testing history. Two weeks after collecting a self-test kit, participants responded to a questionnaire. We used logistic regression to determine predictors of choices. We also conducted 20 in-depth interviews to contextualise quantitative findings. Results May to June 2019, we recruited 1244 participants of whom 249 (20%), 251 (20%), 244 (20%) and 500 (40%) were attending urban general, rural, VMMC and FSW clinics, respectively. Half (n = 619, 50%) chose OFBST, 440 (35%) and 185 (15%) chose BBST and PDBBT, respectively. In multivariable analysis comparing those choosing HIVST (OFBST and BBST combined) versus not, those who had never married aOR 0.57 (95% CI 0.34–0.93) and those previously married aOR0.56 (0.34–0.93) were less likely versus married participants to choose HIVST. HIVST preference increased with education, aOR 2.00 (1.28–3.13), 2.55 (1.28–5.07), 2.76 (1.48–5.14) for ordinary, advanced and tertiary education, respectively versus none/primary education. HIVST preference decreased with age aOR 0.97 (0.96–0.99). Urban participants were more likely than rural ones to choose HIVST, aOR 9.77 (5.47–17.41), 3.38 (2.03–5.62) and 2.23 (1.38–3.61) for FSW, urban general and VMMC clients, respectively. Comparing those choosing OFBST with those choosing BBST, less literate participants were less likely to choose oral fluid tests, aOR 0.29 (0.09–0.92). Conclusions Most testing clients opted for OFBST, followed by BBST and lastly, PDBBT. Those who self-assessed as less healthy were more likely to opt for PDBBT which likely facilitated linkage. Results show importance of continued provision of all strategies in order to meet needs of different populations, and may be useful to inform both HIVST kit stock projections and tailoring of HIVST programs to meet the needs of different populations.