Fern Terris‐Prestholt

A health decision analytical model to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of female genital schistosomiasis screening strategies: The female genital schistosomiasis SCREEN framework

AbstractFemale genital schistosomiasis is a chronic gynaecological disease caused by the waterborne parasite Schistosoma (S.) haematobium. It affects an estimated 30–56 million girls and women globally, mostly in sub‐Saharan Africa where it is endemic, and negatively impacts their sexual and reproductive life. Recent studies found evidence of an association between female genital schistosomiasis and increased prevalence of HIV and cervical precancer lesions. Despite the large population at risk, the burden and impact of female genital schistosomiasis are scarcely documented, resulting in neglect and insufficient resource allocation. There is currently no standardised method for individual or population‐based female genital schistosomiasis screening and diagnosis which hinders accurate assessment of disease burden in endemic countries. To optimise financial allocations for female genital schistosomiasis screening, it is necessary to explore the cost‐effectiveness of different strategies by combining cost and impact estimates. Yet, no economic evaluation has explored the value for money of alternative screening methods. This paper describes a novel application of health decision analytical modelling to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of different female genital schistosomiasis screening strategies across endemic settings. The model combines a decision tree for female genital schistosomiasis screening strategies, and a Markov model for the natural history of cervical cancer to estimate the cost per disability‐adjusted life‐years averted for different screening strategies, stratified by HIV status. It is a starting point for discussion and for supporting priority setting in a data‐sparse environment.

Provider and female client economic costs of integrated sexual and reproductive health and HIV services in Zimbabwe

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.