Search

Adults with severe mental illness are at high risk for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and transmission. Small-group interventions that focus on sexual communication, condom use skills, and motivation to practice safer sex have been shown to be effective at helping mentally ill persons reduce their risk for HIV. However, the cost-effectiveness of these interventions has not been established. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a 9-session small-group intervention for women with mental illness recruited from community mental health clinics in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. We used standard techniques of cost–utility analysis to determine the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved by the intervention. This analysis indicated that the intervention cost $679 per person, and over $136,000 per QALY saved. When the analysis was restricted to the subset of women who reported having engaged in vaginal or anal intercourse in the 3 months prior to the baseline assessment, the cost per QALY saved dropped to approximately $71,000. These estimates suggest that this intervention is marginally cost-effective in comparison with other health promotion interventions, especially if high-risk, sexual-active women are preferentially recruited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Small-group HIV prevention interventions that focus on individual behavioural change have been shown to be especially effective in reducing HIV risk among persons with severe mental illness. Because economic resources to fund HIV prevention efforts are limited, health departments, community planning groups and other key decision-makers need reliable information on the cost and cost-effectiveness (not solely on effectiveness) of different HIV prevention interventions. This study used an economic evaluation technique known as cost-utility analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness of three related cognitive-behavioural HIV risk reduction interventions: a single-session, one-on-one intervention; a multi-session small-group intervention; and a multi-session small-group intervention that taught participants to act as safer sex advocates to their peers. For men, all three interventions were cost-effective, but advocacy training was the most cost-effective of the three. For women, only the single-session intervention was cost-effective. The gender differences observed here highlight the importance of focusing on gender issues when delivering HIV prevention interventions to men and women who are severely mentally ill.