Search

As COVID-19 cases increased during the first weeks of the pandemic in South Africa, the National Institute of Communicable Diseases requested assistance with epidemiologic and surveillance expertise from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention South Africa. By leveraging its existing relationship with the National Institute of Communicable Diseases for >2 months, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention South Africa supported data capture and file organization, data quality reviews, data analytics, laboratory strengthening, and the development and review of COVID-19 guidance This case study provides an account of the resources and the technical, logistical, and organizational capacity leveraged to support a rapid response to the COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa.

In South Africa, HIV prevalence for gay, bisexual, and men who have sex with men (GBMSM) is as high as 49.5%, yet only 25.7% are taking treatment, resulting in transmission risk between partners and the need for dyadic interventions for men in relationships. Through our preliminary research, we identified the evidence-based intervention Healthy Relationships (HR)—an HIV risk assessment and status disclosure intervention for those in relationships—to be tailored into videoconference format for partnered HIV-positive GBMSM in South Africa. The HR adaptation, called SOAR (Speaking Out & Allying Relationships), applied a human-centered design approach. In-depth interviews were conducted with HIV-positive GBMSM ( N = 15) to refine intervention preferences with results used to establish a beta SOAR. A trained interventionist conducted SOAR functionality ( n = 6) and usability ( n = 7) tests with separate invited groups composed of the original participants interviewed. Field logs, focus group discussions, and a study-specific preference survey were administered. Thematic analysis and descriptive statistics were completed with a convergent analytical approach used to understand usability. Overall experience of GBMSM in SOAR was good (69%) or excellent (31%). More than half of the participants (61%) rated using videoconferencing for SOAR as good, with 38% rating it as fair. All participants stated that SOAR was understandable and satisfactory with willingness to recommend it to other GBMSM. This adaptation approach was effective, and the resultant SOAR intervention has the potential to improve individual coping and HIV communication skills with partners to engage with biomedical prevention and in turn support GBMSM couples.

To diagnose ≥90% HIV-infected residents (diagnostic coverage), the Bukoba Combination Prevention Evaluation (BCPE) implemented provider-initiated (PITC), home- (HBHTC), and venue-based (VBHTC) HIV testing and counseling (HTC) intervention in Bukoba Municipal Council, a mixed urban and rural lake zone community of 150,000 residents in Tanzania. This paper describes the methods, outcomes, and incremental costs of these HTC interventions. PITC was implemented in outpatient department clinics in all eight public and three faith-based health facilities. In clinics, lay counselors routinely screened and referred eligible patients for HIV testing conducted by HTC-dedicated healthcare workers. In all 14 wards, community teams offered HTC to eligible persons encountered at 31,293 home visits and at 79 male- and youth-frequented venues. HTC was recommended for persons who were not in HIV care or had not tested in the prior 90 days. BCPE conducted 133,695 HIV tests during the 2.5 year intervention (PITC: 88,813, 66%; HBHTC: 27,407, 21%; VBHTC: 17,475, 13%). Compared with other strategies, PITC conducted proportionally more tests among females (65%), and VBHTC conducted proportionally more tests among males (69%) and young-adults aged 15-24 years (42%). Of 5,550 (4.2% of all tests) HIV-positive tests, 4,143 (75%) clients were newly HIV diagnosed, including 1,583 males and 881 young adults aged 15-24 years. Of HIV tests conducted 3.7%, 1.8%, and 2.1% of PITC, HBHTC, and VBHTC clients, respectively, were newly HIV diagnosed; PITC accounted for 79% of all new diagnoses. Cost per test (per new diagnosis) was $4.55 ($123.66), $6.45 ($354.44), and $7.98 ($372.67) for PITC, HBHTC, and VBHTC, respectively. In a task-shifting analysis in which lay counselors replaced healthcare workers, estimated costs per test (per new diagnosis) would have been $3.06 ($83.15), $ 4.81 ($264.04), and $5.45 ($254.52), for PITC, HBHTC, and VBHTC, respectively. BCPE models reached different target groups, including men and young adults, two groups with consistently low coverage. Implementation of multiple models is likely necessary to achieve ≥90% diagnostic coverage.