Search

1 | INTRODUCTION: THE POTENTIAL OF DIFFERENTIATED SERVICE DELIVERY AND THE NEED TO MEASURE ITS IMPACT The World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendation that all people living with HIV (PLHIV) should [...], Introduction: The World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendation of "Treat All" has accelerated the call for differentiated antiretroviral therapy (ART) delivery, a method of care that efficiently uses limited resources to increase access to HIV treatment. WHO has further recommended that stable individuals on ART receive refills every 3 to 6 months and attend clinical visits every 3 to 6 months. However, there is not yet consensus on how to ensure that the quality of services is maintained as countries strive to meet these standards. This commentary responds to this gap by defining a pragmatic approach to the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the scale up of differentiated ART delivery for global and national stakeholders. Discussion: Programme managers need to demonstrate that the scale up of differentiated ART delivery is achieving the desired effectiveness and efficiency outcomes to justify continued support by national and global stakeholders. To achieve this goal, the two existing global WHO HIV treatment indicators of ART retention and viral suppression should be augmented with two broad aggregate measures. The addition of indicators measuring the frequency of (1) clinical and (2) refill visits by PLHIV per year will allow evaluation of the pace of scale up while monitoring its overall effect on the quality and efficiency of services. The combination of these four routinely collected aggregate indicators will also facilitate the comparison of outcomes among facilities, regions or countries implementing different models of ART delivery. Enhanced monitoring or additional assessments will be required to answer other critical questions on the process of implementation, acceptability, effectiveness and efficiency. Conclusions: These proposed outcomes are useful markers for the effectiveness and efficiency of the health system's attempts to deliver quality treatment to those who need it--and still reserve as much of the available resource pool as possible for other key elements of the HIV response. Keywords: HIV; differentiated care; differentiated service delivery; monitoring and evaluation; efficiency; productivity; health care worker experience; patient experience

Despite numerous achievements in addressing HIV epidemics worldwide, there is still much more that needs to be done to control HIV as a public health threat. As such, the world [...]

Introduction HIV is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally [1]. Despite considerable progress in controlling the epidemic, there were approximately 2.2 million new HIV infections, 1.7 million HIV-related [...], Background: Effective national and global HIV responses require a significant expansion of HIV testing and counselling (HTC) to expand access to prevention and care. Facility-based HTC, while essential, is unlikely to meet national and global targets on its own. This article systematically reviews the evidence for community-based HTC. Methods and Findings: PubMed was searched on 4 March 2013, clinical trial registries were searched on 3 September 2012, and Embase and the World Health Organization Global Index Medicus were searched on 10 April 2012 for studies including community-based HTC (i.e., HTC outside of health facilities). Randomised controlled trials, and observational studies were eligible if they included a community-based testing approach and reported one or more of the following outcomes: uptake, proportion receiving their first HIV test, CD4 value at diagnosis, linkage to care, HIV positivity rate, HTC coverage, HIV incidence, or cost per person tested (outcomes are defined fully in the text). The following community-based HTC approaches were reviewed: (1) door-to-door testing (systematically offering HTC to homes in a catchment area), (2) mobile testing for the general population (offering HTC via a mobile HTC service), (3) index testing (offering HTC to household members of people with HIV and persons who may have been exposed to HIV), (4) mobile testing for men who have sex with men, (5) mobile testing for people who inject drugs, (6) mobile testing for female sex workers, (7) mobile testing for adolescents, (8) self-testing, (9) workplace HTC, (10) church-based HTC, and (11) school-based HTC. The Newcastle- Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and the Cochrane Collaboration's 'risk of bias' tool were used to assess the risk of bias in studies with a comparator arm included in pooled estimates. 117 studies, including 864,651 participants completing HTC, met the inclusion criteria. The percentage of people offered community-based HTC who accepted HTC was as follows: index testing, 88% of 12,052 participants; self-testing, 87% of 1,839 participants; mobile testing, 87% of 79,475 participants; door-to-door testing, 80% of 555,267 participants; workplace testing, 67% of 62,406 participants; and school-based testing, 62% of 2,593 participants. Mobile HTC uptake among key populations (men who have sex with men, people who inject drugs, female sex workers, and adolescents) ranged from 9% to 100% (among 41,110 participants across studies), with heterogeneity related to how testing was offered. Community- based approaches increased HTC uptake (relative risk [RR] 10.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.27-18.08), the proportion of first-time testers (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.06-1.42), and the proportion of participants with CD4 counts above 350 cells/ml (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.16-1.74), and obtained a lower positivity rate (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37-0.96), relative to facility-based approaches. 80% (95% CI 75%-85%) of 5,832 community-based HTC participants obtained a CD4 measurement following HIV diagnosis, and 73% (95% CI 61%-85%) of 527 community-based HTC participants initiated antiretroviral therapy following a CD4 measurement indicating eligibility. The data on linking participants without HIV to prevention services were limited. In low- and middle-income countries, the cost per person tested ranged from US$2-US$126. At the population level, community-based HTC increased HTC coverage (RR 7.07, 95% CI 3.52-14.22) and reduced HIV incidence (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73-1.02), although the incidence reduction lacked statistical significance. No studies reported any harm arising as a result of having been tested. Conclusions: Community-based HTC achieved high rates of HTC uptake, reached people with high CD4 counts, and linked people to care. It also obtained a lower HIV positivity rate relative to facility-based approaches. Further research is needed to further improve acceptability of community-based HTC for key populations. HIV programmes should offer community-based HTC linked to prevention and care, in addition to facility-based HTC, to support increased access to HIV prevention, care, and treatment. Review Registration: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42012002554 Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.