- Systematic review
- Open Access
Costs of implementing community-based intervention for HIV testing in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review
Implementation Science Communications volume 2, Article number: 73 (2021)
Community-based interventions (CBIs) are interventions aimed at improving the well-being of people in a community. CBIs for HIV testing seek to increase the availability of testing services to populations that have been identified as at high risk by reaching them in homes, schools, or community centers. However, evidence for a detailed cost analysis of these community-based interventions in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is limited. We conducted a systematic review of the cost analysis of HIV testing interventions in SSA.
Keyword search was conducted on SCOPUS, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Global Health databases. Three categories of key terms used were cost (implementation cost OR cost-effectiveness OR cost analysis OR cost-benefit OR marginal cost), intervention (HIV testing), and region (sub-Saharan Africa OR sub-Saharan Africa OR SSA). CBI studies were included if they primarily focused on HIV testing, was implemented in SSA, and used micro-costing or ingredients approach.
We identified 1533 citations. After screening, ten studies were included in the review: five from East Africa and five from Southern Africa. Two studies conducted cost-effectiveness analysis, and one study was a cost-utility analysis. The remainder seven studies were cost analyses. Four intervention types were identified: HIV self-testing (HIVST), home-based, mobile, and Provider Initiated Testing and Counseling. Commonly costed resources included personnel (n = 9), materials and equipment (n = 6), and training (n = 5). Cost outcomes reported included total intervention cost (n = 9), cost per HIV test (n = 9), cost per diagnosis (n = 5), and cost per linkage to care (n = 3). Overall, interventions were implemented at a higher cost than controls, with the largest cost difference with HIVST compared to facility-based testing.
To better inform policy, there is an urgent need to evaluate the costs associated with implementing CBIs in SSA. It is important for cost reports to be detailed, uniform, and informed by economic evaluation guidelines. This approach minimizes biases that may lead decision-makers to underestimate the resources required to scale up, sustain, or reproduce successful interventions in other settings. In an evolving field of implementation research, this review contributes to current resources on implementation cost studies.
Community-based interventions (CBIs) are interventions that may combine different strategies across multiple settings and are aimed at improving the well-being of the target population in a community . These different strategies may include education about HIV prevention, promotion of HIV awareness, counseling about risk-reducing behaviors, and promotion of HIV testing and counseling . With HIV prevention, CBIs aims to increase access to medical care to a population that are identified as at risk of HIV infection, such as intravenous drug users, sex workers, men who have sex with men (MSM), or young people with multiple sexual partners [3,4,5,6,7]. They do so by reaching these individuals in homes, schools, or community centers . For uninfected individuals in Sub Saharan Africa (SSA), testing offers a critical point of contact with healthcare providers to use effective HIV prevention strategies; and for people living with HIV, testing provides a gateway to diagnosis and treatment . However, implementing these interventions comes at a cost, and SSA nations will need to optimize their limited resources to scale up HIV prevention interventions that are high quality and cost-effective [9, 10].
Although understanding the costs associated with program implementation is critical to the adoption, success, and sustainability of the program [11, 12], little is known about the costs required to implement these community-based interventions . Furthermore, itemized costs of the resources used to accomplish the different components of their program are infrequently reported by HIV studies implemented [14,15,16,17,18]. The implementation costs of interventions are contextual because the costs depend on the complexity of the intervention, the implementation strategy, and the intervention’s geographical and healthcare setting . When cost analyses are reported in the form of “total cost,” as is common, without the breakdown of individual components of the total cost [18,19,20,21], they fail to provide crucial information on the individual factors driving the implementation costs [11, 22, 23]. Therefore, such cost studies may have limited application in implementation science as they are unable to present a realistic scenario of the programs’ implementation .
Micro-costing or an “ingredients” approach to costing provides a thorough understanding of the resources required for a project [23, 25]. These are a more transparent and precise approach to economic costing in healthcare because it involves identifying all resources used in an intervention [23, 25]. These costing approaches are recommended for studies focused on the implementation of HIV testing programs conducted in community-settings . When HIV prevention program reports include detailed information about costs and outcomes, they present a realistic scenario of how these programs can be implemented in a real-world setting [17, 26,27,28]. Data from detailed cost evaluation reports are critical and relevant to policymakers and other stakeholder groups [11, 12]. Cost information for interventions also facilitates their adaptation in other settings [18, 28]. They also minimize biases that may lead to decision-makers underestimating the resources required to scale up, sustain, or reproduce successful interventions in other settings .
Two previous reviews have explored the implementation costs of HIV testing interventions in SSA: a 2002 systematic review by Creese et al. and a literature review by Hauck et al. [30, 31]. In both reviews, few of the included studies focused on HIV testing and none used micro-costing approach [30, 31]. As such, the reviews may have limited application since they did not present a realistic scenario of how these programs were implemented. To address this gap in the literature, this study presents evidence of the costs of implementation of HIV testing services in SSA, as well as how the costs of implementing these interventions were analyzed and reported.
We conducted a systematic review of English language publications that described the costs of community-based implementation of HIV testing, and reported our findings in accordance to the PRISMA checklist . There was no date restriction for the publications. On 2 December 2019, and updated on 26 April 2020, keyword searches were performed on the following databases: SCOPUS, CINAHL, Web of Science, Global Health, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar. Keyword selection for cost was guided by the taxonomy of implementation outcomes outlined by Proctor et al. . The search strategy (see S1) was designed to capture studies that evaluated the implementation costs of behavioral interventions: randomized control trials and non-randomized control trials, pilot studies, or implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) that have a quantitative economic element (i.e., costs and benefits). The EBIs are peer-reviewed programs with outcomes that are supported by rigorous empirical evidence of effectiveness . The search terms did not include individual SSA countries. The reference lists of the systematic reviews [15,16,17, 30, 31, 34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79] were checked for relevant studies that may have not been identified by our search. See Table 1 for keyword search strategy.
The completed search results were downloaded into Endnote X9 for citation management, deduplication, and literature screening. Study titles and abstracts were initially screened by two independent reviewers using the following inclusion and exclusion criteria. Publications were excluded if they were systematic or scoping reviews, meta-analyses, briefing, debates and commentaries, study protocols, guidelines, meeting reports, conference abstracts, and poster presentations. Interventions related to pediatric HIV prevention or implemented outside of SSA, not HIV-related or not primarily focused on HIV prevention were similarly excluded. Also excluded were interventions designed for people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), pharmaceutical interventions, or utilized HIV prevention strategies other than testing, i.e., treatment as prevention (TasP), universal test and treat (UTT), prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT), prevention programs for serodiscordant couples, and voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC). Interventions utilizing mathematical or simulation models modeling for analysis were excluded as they do not fit the purpose of this study. Studies deemed not to have met the “detailed cost analyses” criteria for micro-costing or “ingredient approach,” in their methodology were excluded (i.e., non-identification of the cost of the individual components of the interventions’ resources). We included HIV testing studies that (1) were community-based intervention in SSA and (2) had intervention and control/comparison arm of the study; and (3) reported disaggregated cost data, i.e., broke down the components of the total cost into small items (e.g., per-diems, overhead or transport).
Two reviewers independently extracted data from each selected study (FU and UN). A third reviewer (CO) conducted an independent crosscheck to identify and resolve any disagreements. We extracted data on intervention description, geographical setting, HIV prevalence, population, sample size, time horizon, perspective, sensitivity analysis, cost measurement used, discount rate, costing instrument or toolkit used (where applicable), and data collection type. We categorized studies by the testing strategy to compare intervention-specific results. The primary cost measurements of interest were total implementation cost and cost per unit of interest (e.g., cost per client tested, cost per HIV diagnosis). Study outcomes not related to cost analyses were not reported in this review. Given that the interventions were too different to allow for pooling [80,81,82] and our aim was not to compare cost across the ten studies included in this review, we did not inflate the costs to a common year.
Risk of bias
To systematically compare the interventions, we evaluated the rigor of each intervention using the risk of bias that was developed by the Evidence Project for behavioral interventions for HIV interventions in low- and middle-income countries . The tool consists of eight items: cohort, control or comparison group, pre-post intervention data, random assignment of participants to the intervention, random assignment of participants to assessment, follow-up rate of 80% or more, comparison group equivalent on socio-demographics, and comparison group equivalent at baseline on outcome measures . The risk of bias was independently rated by FU and UN using the guideline outlined by Kennedy et al. 2019 .
One of the objectives of this review was to evaluate how the implementation costs of HIV testing interventions in SSA were analyzed and reported. We used two study quality appraisal frameworks: Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) standardized framework  (which assessed the quality of the cost analysis itself) and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)  (which assessed the reporting quality of the economic evaluation). The QHES and CHEERS frameworks are included in Appendices A and B respectively (in Additional file A1 and A2) [87, 88].
We identified 1533 citations: 1519 from the database search, and 14 additional resources from previous studies on the cost of HIV interventions [30, 31]. Of 1533 articles, 25 were identified for full-text review. Seventeen of the 27 papers were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria. Seven provided total cost or cost per intervention outcome but did not have sufficient disaggregated costing data available [19, 89,90,91,92,93,94]. Thus, these 17 studies were excluded, leaving the remaining ten publications that met the full inclusion criteria [95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104]. Other reasons for exclusion included full text was unavailable [105, 106], studies had no control or comparison group [21, 107, 108], the study was a Universal Test and Treat (UTT) intervention , and studies were not primarily focused on HIV testing [110,111,112]. Although Chang et al. presented disaggregated data, the collection of cost data started 6 months after the start of the intervention when the intervention was believed to have reached a stable operational state per the goal of the study to characterize stable program functioning . As such, the cost information provided by the study would not have fully reflected the implementation costs of the intervention. Figure 1 shows the PRISMA flowchart, and Table 2 shows the PRISMA checklist.
Risk of bias
A study must meet at least one of these three criteria (cohort, control, or comparison group, pre-post intervention data) to be included in the review. We calculated the inter-rater reliability for each tool item. All items are treated as dichotomous, whereby we collapsed “not applicable” and “not reported” responses with “no” to reflect an assessment of whether the study did or did not get credit for having achieved that item. We added up the number of items met to create a final summary score for each study and using the weighted kappa assessed inter-reliability between the raters. The total count of agreement was substantial (κw = 0.73). No study was excluded from the review due to concerns about biases. The summary of the risk of bias rating is presented in Table 3.
Characteristics of studies
The ten studies included in the review provided an economic evaluation of HIV testing interventions in SSA, either as a component of a larger study design [95, 96, 103] or as a stand-alone cost analysis [97,98,99,100,101,102, 104]. Four studies collected cost data retrospectively [96, 100, 102, 104]. Data from five studies were collected prospectively [95, 97,98,99, 101]. One paper did not disclose their study’s data collection method . The study participants in four studies were 18 years and older [95, 97, 99, 101]. In Tabana et al., participants had to be 14 and older; 13 and older in Cham et al. [96, 104]. Overall, the interventions spanned a period of nine years, 2008–2017.
All ten interventions were implemented in East and Southern Africa. Two studies were conducted in Kenya [98, 102], and two in Swaziland [102, 103]. The studies by Parker et al. and part of Obure et al. were both conducted in Swaziland, a landlocked lower-middle-income country in Southern Africa, with a population of 1.2 million, but in different locations Swaziland [102, 103]. The Parker et al. study was carried out in the relatively rural Shiselweni region with an estimated population of 41,000 of people living with HIV and 15,000 person who are unaware of their HIV status [114, 115]. There was no specific mention of the locations Obure et al. was conducted, only that it was in 41 health facilities in Kenya and Swaziland that were chosen to represent urban and rural regions . Aside from the information that the George et al. study was conducted in Kenya, no additional location-based information provided in the article . The article mentioned that The North Star Alliance, the organization George et al. partnered with, provided health services to hard-to-reach populations across Africa and that in 2017, the organization operated 53 clinics located at major transit hubs in 13 countries in Southern and East Africa, including eight in Kenya. Services provided by The North Star Alliance included HIV self-testing (HIVST), screening, and treatment of infectious disease (e.g., STI, HIV, TB, malaria) diagnosis and treatment of mobility-related and other non-communicable diseases, health education and laboratory services .
Two studies were carried out in Malawi: Choko et al. and Maheswaran et al. [97, 99]. In Choko et al. (2019), the specific location of the study was omitted. However, the article specified that a total of 3137 pregnant women (in 71 clusters with approximately 20–30 women per cluster) were initially screened for the study—the 36 clusters in the first stage of trial, and then 35 clusters in the second stage 2. From 3137, 2349 were included in the final study . The Maheswaran et al. was conducted in three high-density urban suburbs of Blantyre with an adult population of approximately 34,000 residents, 1200 adults of which made it into the study .
Two studies were set in South Africa, Meehan et al. and Tabana et al. [100, 104]. In Meehan et al., the study took place in the Cape Metro district, Western Cape Province . The study was carried out in partnership with The Desmond Tutu TB Centre (DTTC) at Stellenbosch University, and five non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in five peri-urban communities in the district characterized by poverty, overcrowding, high unemployment rates, and high HIV prevalence . Tabana et al. (2012) was a cross-sectional study conducted in KwaZulu-Natal province, a sub-district with a population of approximately 243,000 people, with the highest HIV prevalence rate in South Africa (17%) and where 70% of the households lived below the poverty line . Only 16% of the adult population in province had reportedly ever had HIV testing .
Mulogo et al. and Bogart et al. are two study carried out in Uganda [95, 101]. The study by Mulogo et al. was conducted in two sites: Mbarara and Isingiro districts. The populations of Mbarara and Isingiro districts are estimated to be 418,300 and 385,500 respectively . Facility-based VCT was offered the Mbarara study site (Kabingo sub-county) while home-based VCT was offered to Isingiro study site (Rugando sub-county) . For the 2017 Bogart et al. study was conducted in Wakiso District; event-based HIV testing in Zzinga Island, while and home-based HIV testing in Kavenyanja Island. Zzinga Island was estimated to have about 700 households, while Kavenyanja Island has about 1100 households .
The Cham et al. study was the only study included in this review that was conducted in Tanzania . In Bukoba Municipal Council (BMC), the capital of Kagera Region is located on the western shore of Lake Victoria, with its economy supported by fishing and agriculture. As such, BMC residents are primarily fishermen and associated populations that support the fishing industry, including sex workers . Fifty-two percent of men and 68% of women in BMC have reportedly received an HIV test in the past 2 years [120, 121].
Table 4 summarizes the methodological design of the studies evaluated and provides a descriptive overview of interventions reported in the ten reviewed studies. Four categories of intervention types were identified: HIV self-testing (HIVST) [97,98,99], home-based testing and counseling [95, 96, 100, 101, 104], mobile-based testing and counseling , and provider-initiated testing (PITC) . These interventions were commonly compared to facility-based testing [97,98,99, 101, 104], event-based testing , home-based testing , PITC , and voluntary testing . Four studies were randomized control trials; three of which evaluated the cost of implementing HIVST interventions [97,98,99] and one evaluated home-based testing . Mulogo et al. was a longitudinal study with a pre-post cross-sectional investigative phase . The remaining five studies did not state the study design, but the description of the data collection process suggests a cross-sectional design [95, 96, 100, 102, 103], whereby Bogart et al., Meehan et al., Obure et al., and Parker et al. were comparison group study, while Cham et al. was a cohort study. All ten studies were appraised for their QHES score.
Types of interventions
The only diagnostic testing reported in eight studies was HIV [95,96,97,98,99,100,101, 103]. In addition to HIV, participants in Tabana et al. were also tested for syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, trichomonas, and candidiasis . Furthermore, Tabana and colleagues did not disaggregate the costs for HIV testing specifically in the cost of the intervention. Although this is a study limitation, it was reported in the paper. In Obure et al., participants in the PITC arm of the study received routine healthcare (e.g., general primary care, maternal and child healthcare, care for sexually transmitted infections, and inpatient services) . In Bogart et al., Meehan et al., and Tabana et al., condoms were given to participants [95, 100, 104]. Participants in Bogart et al. also received de-worming tablets, bed nets, and water guard tablets . Seven studies stated the cadre of healthcare workers involved in the intervention [95, 96, 99,100,101,102, 104]. Nurses were used in five studies [96, 100,101,102, 104]; lay counselors in seven studies [95, 96, 99,100,101,102, 104]; and lab assistant/technologist in two studies [101, 102]. In three studies, lay counselors served both as pre- and post-test counselors as well as tested the participants [101, 102, 104].
Types of costing measures
Costs were predominantly evaluated using a healthcare perspective (n = 8) [95,96,97, 100,101,102,103,104]. All but one study used empirical analytic approach [95,96,97,98,99,100, 102,103,104], with the exception using a model-based approach . While Mulogo et al. mentioned the use of a decision model in their economic evaluation, the particular model used was not stated . None of the studies mentioned the use of any economic evaluation guidelines to inform their costing approach. Tabana et al. was the only study that specified the costing instrument used in their study .
Confirmatory testing in a healthcare facility was required in four studies [96, 97, 99, 103]. In Meehan et al., HIV-positive clients were given referral letters to a public health facility for care and treatment . However, none of these five studies reported who bore the cost of confirmatory testing or HIV treatment for participants who tested positive to HIV [96, 97, 99, 100, 102]. Though Maheswaran et al.’s study was a societal perspective, the authors did not state if an amount of money was paid out of pocket by the patient or was subsidized or paid for by the government or donor as part of the intervention. The cost of test kits was included in the intervention costs in seven studies [95,96,97,98,99,100,101], with Bogart et al., Choko et al., George et al., and Maheswaran et al. providing the individual cost of the kits [95, 97,98,99]. Maheswaran et al. reported the unit cost of purchasing and shipping the HIVST kits, as well as the cost of the finger-prick rapid diagnostic test (RDT) kits used in the health facilities . Obure et al. and Parker et al. did not state if kits were free or subsidized or if it was purchased for the intervention [102, 103]. Tabana et al. costed testing equipment, without specifying the particular testing equipment .
Although all ten studies reported using micro-costing or ingredient-approach in their cost evaluation, individual costs of different implementation components were aggregated in many studies. In Meehan et al., the cost of all equipment and assets was aggregated as capital goods, while the cost of utilities, consumables, and services directly related to testing service was aggregated as recurring goods . While Maheswaran et al. provided the most detailed cost information compared to other studies, capital/overhead was costed without the study stating what constituted capital/overhead in the program . Notwithstanding, we identified 12 common resource types: start-up cost, material, and equipment, vehicle, fueling, stationary/supplies, office rental/building, utilities, furniture, maintenance, training, and transportation. Personnel cost, material/equipment, stationary/supplies, and training were the cost items typically presented as stand-alone cost components. Personnel costs were reported in all ten studies. Materials and equipment were reported in seven studies [95,96,97,98,99, 103, 104]. Stationary/supplies were reported in five studies [96,97,98, 101, 104], and training in four studies [96, 98, 99, 101]. Fueling or vehicle [96, 99, 100, 102], furniture or maintenance [96,97,98,99,100, 103, 104], and office rent/building or utilities [97,98,99,100, 103, 104] were commonly aggregated. Tabana et al. was the only study to report on start-up costs. Tabana et al., Maheswaran et al., and Mulogo et al. had the most detailed cost information [99, 101, 104]. Conversely, Obure et al. and Meehan et al. had the least [100, 102].
Six studies reported only the financial cost of implementing the interventions, focusing on the direct cost of the intervention [95,96,97, 101, 103, 104]. Four studies performed economic costing [98,99,100, 102]. In George et al., costs not specifically borne by the counseling and testing services were said to have been calculated but was not reported in the paper . While Meehan et al. said economic costing was performed, the costs of free products were not accounted for in the paper . Maheswaran et al. was the only study that reported cost for patient time-off, patient direct non-medical cost, and caregiver time . Two studies stated they were conducting a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) [101, 104]. We identified Maheswaran et al. as a cost-utility analysis (CUA) because the study had measured the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of the participants . The remainder seven studies were identified as cost-effectiveness studies since they reported cost per unit outcome of interest [95,96,97,98, 100, 102, 103]. Eight studies reported the total cost per intervention [95,96,97,98,99,100,101, 104]. All ten studies reported the cost per unit of interest: cost per test [95, 96, 98,99,100,101,102, 104], cost per HIV diagnosed [96, 99,100,101,102,103], and cost per client linked to care [97, 99, 100, 103]. Table 5 contains detailed information about the cost outcomes of the interventions.
In comparing the total implementation costs of the interventions to the controls, the latter was recorded to cost less in most studies. While this pattern was noted in all four categories of testing interventions (HIVST, home-based testing [HBHTC], mobile testing [MHTC], and provider-initiated testing [PITC]), the margin was wider with HIVST interventions. For instance, in Choko et al., total intervention cost (excluding ART/VMMC) for the five intervention strategies ranged from USD 1176 to USD 7470 . The corresponding control (standard of care) cost was USD 557; less than half of what was spent implementing the least costly strategy. The margin was the narrowest in George et al.; USD 544 compared to USD 285 and USD 336 of implementing a standard of care and enhanced standard of care respectively . Only Meehan et al. and Cham et al. reported implementing the intervention at a lower cost than the control . However, in Cham et al., the total cost for the intervention (USD 176,866) was lower only for the PITC arm (USD 404,365) and not the venue-based testing service [VBHTC] (USD 139,377) . However, cost per test and cost per HIV diagnosis was lowest in PITC of the three arms of testing modalities; VBHTC cost the most of the three .
When assessing cost per outcome, the cost of implementing the interventions was lower than that of the control for some outcomes but higher for other outcomes. For instance, in George et al., cost per client tested was lower for truck drivers: USD 20.92 for HIVST to USD 28.48 for the standard of care and USD 33.57 for an enhanced standard of care . However, for female sex workers, the intervention group cost USD 11.43 to the USD 9.56 for the standard of care. In Bogart et al., there was minimal difference in the cost per test between intervention and control: cost per test for home-based testing was USD45.09 and USD46.99 for event-based testing as its control . In Obure et al., the intervention arm of the study (PITC) costed less than the control (voluntary counseling and testing) for both total cost and cost per the two outcomes measure (per client and HIV diagnosed) .
The heterogeneity in reporting how different components of the intervention were costed made implementation costs across studies incomparable. For instance, the financial input in Bogart et al. was calculated as cost per capita , percentage of total cost in Parker et al. , and cost per client tested in George et al. . Eight studies adjusted for inflation and the dollar exchange rate relative the currency used in implementing the interventions. Three studies adjusted for inflation [96, 99, 104]. Maheswaran et al. used World Bank data to adjust all costs to account for inflation and differences in purchasing power between countries . Cham et al. inflated the costs to 2017 price levels using the annual Tanzania consumer price index (CPI) ratio for 2014, 2015, and 2016 . For Tabana et al., the costs incurred prior to 2010 were adjusted by using the CPI ratio for 2010 as the base year . Costs in six studies were collected in local currencies and converted to US dollars [95, 98, 100,101,102, 104]; five of them provided the exchange rate used in converting to dollars [98, 100,101,102, 104]. Cham et al. and Tabana et al. annuitized the cost of some items [96, 104]: Cham et al. annuitized vehicle costs at an annual rate of 3% , while Tabana et al. annualized the economic costs of capital items, using either the items’ purchase value or replacement value, to an interest rate of 9% . Only George et al. and Meehan reported the marginal costs alongside the absolute intervention costs, providing mainly the cost of additional test kits [98, 100]. In George et al., the cost of HIVST kit dropped from USD 9.22 to USD 2.00 after the agreement with Gates Foundation .
Data quality appraisal
Quality of Health Economic Studies
Using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) checklist, 50% of ten studies were of high quality [96, 98, 99, 101, 104]. With a QHES score of 86%, Maheswaran et al. was the study with the highest quality . At 46%, Obure et al. scored the lowest and was the only study of poor quality . The QHES dimensions with the highest scores were questions responding to (a) if the study stated and justified the main assumptions and limitation of the study (90%); (b) if the presentation of study methods and analysis was clear and transparent (90%); (c) if the data extraction methodology was stated (90%); and (d) if the study conclusions/recommendations were justified and based on the study results (100%). Although economic evaluations are susceptible to, six studies failed to address how the researchers handled uncertainties [95,96,97, 100, 102, 103]. In that, the studies did not report performing statistical analysis to address random events or sensitivity analysis to cover a range of assumptions [95,96,97,98, 102, 103]. Three studies performed univariate sensitivity analysis [98, 101, 104]. Maheswaran et al. performed both sensitivity and statistical analyses for uncertainties . For the seven studies with a time horizon beyond 1 year, four discounted for the effects and cost generated after the first year [98, 101, 102, 104]. Only George et al. reported CEA estimates from subgroup analyses: female sex workers and truck drivers . Obure et al. was the only study that failed to disclose information of the data extraction method used . Furthermore, the authors failed to state the perspective of their analysis and did not discuss the direction or magnitude of the potential biases of the study.
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards
Overall, the reviewed studies performed poorer on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) assessment compared to QHES. No study reached the 75% threshold to be classified as high quality. Four studies had scored lower than 50% and were therefore considered to be of poor quality [95, 97, 102, 103]. These studies also had the lowest QHES scores. Six studies were categorized as average quality, fulfilling between 50 and 63% of the criteria [96, 98,99,100,101, 104]. At 63% of criteria met, Maheswaran et al. had the highest CHEERS score . Model choice and model assumptions were only applicable to Mulogo et al. . However, the authors did not describe the assumptions underpinning the decision-analytic model and did not provide a figure showing the model structure as strongly recommended by CHEERS. Nine studies stated the time horizon for the costs being evaluated, but none justified why the time horizon was appropriate [95, 97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104]. Cham et al. did not state the study’s time horizon nor its appropriateness for the evaluation .
Six studies with time horizon more than a year failed to report the choice of the discount rate used and why it was appropriate [95,96,97,98, 100, 101, 103]. Nine studies did not characterize participants’ heterogeneity in their results [95, 96, 98, 100,101,102,103,104, 122]. Eight studies did not declare information about conflict of interest among study contributors [95,96,97,98, 101,102,103,104]. Seven items on the checklist were most commonly reported: a structured abstract [95,96,97,98,99,100,101, 104], explicit statement about the broader context of the study and its policy relevance in the introduction [95,96,97, 99,100,101, 103, 104], and a summary of population characteristics [95,96,97,98,99,100, 102, 103]. However, none of the seven studies that provided a structured abstract mentioned performing uncertainty analyses as required by CHEERS. The overall quality of the included studies according to the QHES and CHEERS checklists is summarized in Table 6.
We identified four categories of HIV testing interventions in this review: HIVST, home-based testing, mobile-based testing, and PITC. Three categories of testing services commonly served as controls: facility-based testing (FBHTC), event-based testing, and PITC. In two studies conducted in Malawi, the HIVST intervention costs twice as much the FBHTC, irrespective of the clinic site [97, 99]. Given that HIVST is a relatively new testing modality compared to the controls, the large difference in costs associated with implementation is partly attributable to the latter requiring little or no additional cost-intensive resources such as office rental, vehicle, or pre-implementation costs. Regardless, HIVST has the potential to increase uptake of HIV testing among undiagnosed people living with HIV and individuals with high HIV risk [123,124,125,126]. HIVST also provides complementary coverage to the standard HIV testing service . With the release of the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines to encourage HIVST [125, 128], our review findings make an important contribution to scaling up HIVST interventions in SSA.
Delivering PITC mostly costs the least whether as the intervention arm or control arm. This could be because PITC had been recommended by the WHO since 2007 . Per recommendation, all patients attending health facilities are required to be routinely offered HIV testing in countries with generalized HIV epidemics . Correspondingly, some costs associated with implementing PITC had already been built into the healthcare system. Nevertheless, while PITC may be low-cost, it is an approach with limited impact in reaching the greatest number of people [130,131,132,133]. Specifically, PITC does not reach individuals who do not typically utilize facility-based health services and other vulnerable or marginalized population groups with both high HIV incidence rates and low uptake of HIV testing due to fear of stigmatization (e.g., adolescents and men who have sex with men) [130,131,132,133]. Hence, the push for HIVST to address these barriers [123,124,125,126]. An example of how HIVST addressed some of the barriers associated with accessing clinic-based HIV testing services is in men’s health—their reluctance to visit healthcare facilities , thereby leading to a situation where there are a high proportion of HIV positive men who remain unaware of their HIV status . HIVST is thought to offer an approach to improving men’s HIV testing rates by enabling the men convenience in time and place of conducting and interpreting their own HIV tests at their own convenient time and in a private space [135,136,137].
While all ten studies in the review presenting disaggregated cost information, the level of details varied across papers. Nevertheless, most studies provided fewer details about the individual cost of resources involved with accomplishing the different components of their program. Furthermore, there were many aspects of program implementation that were inadequately covered in the studies, such as startup costs related to preparatory work, and education or costs related to ongoing monitoring. Other than Tabana et al. , none of the other studies provided a clear picture of how much it cost to initiate the intervention or at what stage the cost analysis began. Nine out of the ten studies did not provide an explicit assessment of the “hidden” costs of implementation, such as an estimation of the cost of human or material resources that may have been free to the intervention or costs shared. Furthermore, the marginal costs of the interventions were reported by only two studies. While absolute costs are important for implementation planning as it presents the resource demands of an intervention design , marginal costs should not be neglected. This is because marginal costs capture how additional costs change as service levels increase, thereby making the reported cost information amenable for analysis and comparison [139, 140].
The studies did not provide details on whether the funds used in their programs were from one source or from multiple sources. As it pertains to personnel cost, it was also not clear if there had been a need to recruit new staff as the intervention advanced. If additional staff had been recruited, at what stage did it become necessary to do so and what extra cost was added to the intervention. This might be due to reporting bias or that they were only available in grey literature, thus limiting access to valuable information decision-makers need. As a result, the findings limit a realistic reflection of the resources that may be required to scale up, sustain, or reproduce the intervention in other settings. Subsequently, decision-makers may underestimate the cost of implementing the intervention and overestimate their benefits . Detailed overview of the materials and personnel resources necessary for implementation facilitates budgeting, and enable implementers intending to adapt the intervention anticipate costs they may not otherwise consider . This is a gap that needs to be filled by future researchers and program implementers.
Another critical gap to be addressed is the quality of the economic evaluations, particularly the reporting. Presumably, this is due to the low capacity of health technology assessment (which has economic evaluation at its core) in SSA . Therefore, deliberate efforts will need to be made in other interventions/studies to build this capacity . Most of the reviewed studies were generally of good quality using the QHES checklist, with half of them reaching the threshold for high quality (75%). Additionally, data were collected prospectively in half of the studies included in this review which minimized the risk of bias analyzing programs’ financial records retrospectively are subject to . However, there still remains room for improvement. One way may be in calculating implementation costs in a manner consistent with existing guidelines such as Guideline for Economic Evaluations in Healthcare , Costing Guidelines for HIV/AIDS Intervention Strategies , or Reference Case for Estimating Cost of Global Health Services and Interventions . These guidelines allow for more informative reports that aid decision-makers’ choices about the options available to them [145, 146]. Greater attention also needs to be paid to the reporting of the cost evaluation, as evidenced by the low quality of the CHEERS appraisal. This provides a premise for building capacity for economic evaluation in sustainable and institutionalized ways in SSA. Overall, implementation researchers should be mindful of the importance of reporting the cost of their implementing their interventions . More so, they need to go beyond reporting cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses to demonstrate the long-term economic effects of their interventions . The absence of implementation cost data constrains deliberations about resources to consign to community-based health programs . It constricts investment to program components like personnel, equipment, and modalities that are critical to strengthening and developing community health systems .
Although this review offers a synthesis of cost analyses of HIV testing intervention in SSA, there are potential limitations to this study worth mentioning. While the literature search was wide, the study had strict inclusion criteria, thus limiting generalizability [150, 151]. Nonetheless, the strictness of the criteria meant that the review was more concise, cohesive, and had fewer challenges potentially introduced by heterogeneity .
Our systematic review shows that more attention needs to be paid to increasing the quality of conducting and reporting economic evaluations for HIV prevention interventions in SSA. Particularly, considerable effort needs to go into reporting them appropriately. To better inform policy, future evaluation of HIV prevention intervention will need to follow evidence-based guidelines and quality assurance frameworks so that the costs reported are extensive enough to address the many aspects of implementation that were not reported in previous evaluations. The interventions included in this review were disproportionately from East and Southern Africa. Geographic diversification of implementation cost analysis studies from West and Central Africa is needed in future research. As noted, implementation costs are contextual, thus costs of implementing HIV testing in West and Central Africa may or may not be substantially different compared to East and Southern Africa. Therefore, geographic diversification of implementation cost analysis studies from West and Central Africa to address the research question is needed. In an evolving field of implementation research, the review contributes to current resources on quantitative evaluation of cost studies. It particularly advocates for an increased use of economic evaluation guidance to aid implementation researchers for better reporting of cost information.
Availability of data and materials
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary data.
Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards
Consumer price index
Event-based HIV testing and counseling
Evidence based intervention
Facility-based HIV testing and counseling
Female sex workers
Generalized linear models
Home-based HIV testing and counseling
Human immunodeficiency virus
Health-related quality of life
Jason J. Ong
Joseph D. Tucker
Male friendly clinics
Mobile-based HIV testing and counseling
Provider-initiated testing and counseling
People living with HIV/AIDS
Prevention of mother to child transmission
Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital
Quality of Health Economic Studies
Rapid diagnostic test
Stand-alone community-based HIV testing and counseling
Stacey L. Mason
Short message service
Standard of care
Standard of care + access to HIVST
Treatment as prevention
The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS
Venue-based HIV testing and counseling
Voluntary counseling and testing
Voluntary medical male circumcision
World Health Organization
Petridou ET, Antonopoulos CN, Alexe DM. Injuries, epidemiology of. In: Heggenhougen HK, editor. International Encyclopedia of Public Health. Oxford: Academic Press; 2008. p. 609–25.
Salam RA, Haroon S, Ahmed HH, Das JK, Bhutta ZA. Impact of community-based interventions on HIV knowledge, attitudes, and transmission. Infect Dis Poverty. 2014;3(1):26. https://doi.org/10.1186/2049-9957-3-26.
Durowade KA, Babatunde OA, Omokanye LO, Elegbede OE, Ayodele LM, Adewoye KR, et al. Early sexual debut: prevalence and risk factors among secondary school students in Ido-ekiti, Ekiti state, South-West Nigeria. Afr Health Sci. 2017;17(3):614–22. https://doi.org/10.4314/ahs.v17i3.3.
GSS, GHS, International I. Ghana demographic and health survey 2014. Rockville: Ghana Statistical Service (GSS); Ghana Health Service (GHS); ICF International; 2015.
Longmore MA, Johnson WL, Manning WD, Giordano PC. HIV testing among heterosexual young adults: the influence of individual attitudes and behaviors, partner’s risk-taking and relationship dynamics. J Sex Res. 2013;50(5):489–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.661101.
Monasch R, Mahy M. Young people: the centre of the HIV epidemic. In: DDB R, Ferguson J, editors. Preventing HIV/AIDS in young people - A systematic review of the evidence from developing countries: UNAIDS interagency task team on HIV and young people. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2006.
UNAIDS. Prevention gap report. In: AIDS. Geneva: Joint United Nations Programme on, HIV/AIDS; 2016.
Horn T, Sherwood J, Remien RH, Nash D, Auerbach JD, Treatment Action G. Foundation for Aids Research HIVPCWG: Towards an integrated primary and secondary HIV prevention continuum for the United States: a cyclical process model. J Int AIDS Soc. 2016;19(1):21263. https://doi.org/10.7448/IAS.19.1.21263.
UNAIDS: 90-90-90 An Ambitious treatment target to help end the AIDS epidemic. 2017.
Bautista-Arredondo S, Sosa-Rubí SG, Opuni M, Kwan A, Chaumont C, Coetzee J, et al. Assessing cost and technical efficiency of HIV prevention interventions in sub-Saharan Africa: the ORPHEA study design and methods. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):599. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0599-9.
Glasgow RE, Harden SM, Gaglio B, Rabin B, Smith ML, Porter GC, et al. RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework: adapting to new science and practice with a 20-year review. Front Public Health. 2019;7:64.
Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7.
Khavjou OA, Honeycutt AA, Yarnoff B, Bradley C, Soler R, Orenstein D. Costs of community-based interventions from the community transformation grants. Prev Med. 2018;112:138–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.04.025.
Hoeft TJ, Wilcox H, Hinton L, Unützer J. Costs of implementing and sustaining enhanced collaborative care programs involving community partners. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0882-6.
Geldsetzer P, Yapa H, Vaikath M, Ogbuoji O, Fox M, Essajee S, et al. A systematic review of interventions to improve postpartum retention of women in PMTCT and ART care. J Int AIDS Soc. 2016;19(1).
Bright T, Felix L, Kuper H, Polack S. Systematic review of strategies to increase access to health services among children over five in low- and middle-income countries. Trop Med Int Health. 2018;23(5):476–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/tmi.13044.
Hensen B, Taoka S, Lewis JJ, Weiss HA, Hargreaves J. Systematic review of strategies to increase men's HIV-testing in sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS. 2014;28(14):2133–45.
Ronckers ET, Groot W, Steenbakkers M, Ruland E, Ament A. Costs of the 'Hartslag Limburg' community heart health intervention. BMC Public Health. 2006;6(1):51. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-6-51.
Menzies N, Abang B, Wanyenze R, Nuwaha F, Mugisha B, Coutinho A, et al. The costs and effectiveness of four HIV counseling and testing strategies in Uganda. Aids. 2009;23(3):395–401. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0b013e328321e40b.
Shamu S, Farirai T, Kuwanda L, Slabbert J, Guloba G, Johnson S, et al. Social franchising of community-based HIV testing and linkage to HIV care and treatment services: an evaluation of a pilot study in Tshwane, South Africa. J Int AIDS Soc. 2018;21(12):e25216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jia2.25216.
Thielman N, Chu H, Ostermann J, Itemba D, Mgonja A, Mtweve S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of free HIV voluntary counseling and testing through a community-based AIDS service organization in Northern Tanzania. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(1):114–9. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.056796.
Brennan A, Jackson A, Horgan M, Bergin CJ, Browne JP. Resource utilisation and cost of ambulatory HIV care in a regional HIV centre in Ireland: a micro-costing study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15(1):139. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0816-1.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes: Oxford university press; 2015.
Roberts D, Barnabas R, Abuna F, Lagat H, Kinuthia J, Pintye J, et al. The role of costing in the introduction and scale-up of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis: evidence from integrating PrEP into routine maternal and child health and family planning clinics in western Kenya. J Int AIDS Soc. 2019;22(S4). https://doi.org/10.1002/jia2.25296.
Creese A, Parker D. Cost analysis in primary health care. A training manual for programme managers: ERIC; 1994.
Galárraga O, Colchero MA, Wamai RG, Bertozzi SM. HIV prevention cost-effectiveness: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2009;9(1):S5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-9-S1-S5.
Gomez GB, Borquez A, Case KK, Wheelock A, Vassall A, Hankins C. The cost and impact of scaling up pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness modelling studies. PLoS Med. 2013;10(3):e1001401. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001401.
Sarkar S, Corso P, Ebrahim-Zadeh S, Kim P, Charania S, Wall K. Cost-effectiveness of HIV prevention interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. EClin Med. 2019;10:10–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.04.006.
Roberts SLE, Healey A, Sevdalis N. Use of health economic evaluation in the implementation and improvement science fields-a systematic literature review. Impl Sci. 2019;14(1):72. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0901-7.
Creese A, Floyd K, Alban A, Guinness L. Cost-effectiveness of HIV/AIDS interventions in Africa: a systematic review of the evidence. Lancet. 2002;359(9318):1635–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08595-1.
Hauck K. The costs of home-based HIV testing and counselling in sub-Saharan Africa and its association with testing yield: a literature review. Afr J AIDS Res. 2019;18(4):324–31. https://doi.org/10.2989/16085906.2019.1680399.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D, Group TP. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
Chambless DL, Ollendick TH. Empirically supported psychological interventions: controversies and evidence. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52(1):685–716. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.685.
Atkins K, Yeh PT, Kennedy CE, Fonner VA, Sweat MD, O'Reilly KR, et al. Service delivery interventions to increase uptake of voluntary medical male circumcision for HIV prevention: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2020;15(1):e0227755. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227755.
Bateganya MHM, Amanyeiwe UF, Roxo UM, Dong MMD. Impact of support groups for people living with HIV on clinical outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2015;15(68):S368–74.
Chaiyachati KH, Ogbuoji O, Price M, Suthar AB, Negussie EK, Barnighausen T. Interventions to improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy: a rapid systematic review. Aids. 2014;28:S187–204. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0000000000000252.
Collins PY, Holman AR, Freeman MC, Patel V. What is the relevance of mental health to HIV/AIDS care and treatment programs in developing countries? A systematic review. AIDS. 2006;20(12):1571–82.
Ensor S, Davies B, Rai T, Ward H. The effectiveness of demand creation interventions for voluntary male medical circumcision for HIV prevention in sub-Saharan Africa: a mixed methods systematic review. J Int AIDS Soc. 2019;22.
Feyissa GT, Lockwood C, Munn Z. The effectiveness of home-based HIV counseling and testing in reducing stigma and risky sexual behavior among adults and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015;13(6):318–72. https://doi.org/10.11124/01938924-201513060-00017.
Firestone R, Rowe CJ, Modi SN, Sievers D. The effectiveness of social marketing in global health: a systematic review. Health Policy Plan. 2017;32(1):110–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czw088.
Fokom-Domgue J, Combescure C, Fokom-Defo V, Tebeu PM, Vassilakos P, Kengne AP, et al. Performance of alternative strategies for primary cervical cancer screening in sub-Saharan Africa: systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Bmj. 2015;351:h3084.
Ford N, Shubber Z, Jarvis JN, Chiller T, Greene G, Migone C, et al. CD4 cell count threshold for Cryptococcal antigen screening of HIV-infected individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(suppl_2):S152–9.
Galarraga O, Wirtz VJ, Figueroa-Lara A, Santa-Ana-Tellez Y, Coulibaly I, Viisainen K, et al. Unit costs for delivery of antiretroviral treatment and prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV: a systematic review for low- and middle-income countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(7):579–99. https://doi.org/10.2165/11586120-000000000-00000.
Gimbel S, Voss J, Rustagi A, Mercer MA, Zierler B, Gloyd S, et al. What does high and low have to do with it? Performance classification to identify health system factors associated with effective prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV delivery in Mozambique. J Int AIDS Soc. 2014;17(1):18828. https://doi.org/10.7448/IAS.17.1.18828.
Govindasamy D, Ferrand RA, Wilmore SM, Ford N, Ahmed S, Afnan-Holmes H, et al. Uptake and yield of HIV testing and counselling among children and adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. J Int AIDS Soc. 2015;18(1):20182. https://doi.org/10.7448/IAS.18.1.20182.
Govindasamy D, Meghij J, Negussi EK, Baggaley RC, Ford N, Kranzer K. Interventions to improve or facilitate linkage to or retention in pre-ART (HIV) care and initiation of ART in low- and middle-income settings—a systematic review. J Int AIDS Soc. 2014;17:1.
Gupta-Wright A, Peters JA, Flach C, Lawn SD. Detection of lipoarabinomannan (LAM) in urine is an independent predictor of mortality risk in patients receiving treatment for HIV-associated tuberculosis in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2016;14(1):53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0603-9.
Ibekwe EPC, Haigh CP, Duncan F, Fatoye F. Economic impact of routine opt-out antenatal human immune deficiency virus screening: A systematic review. J Clin Nurs. 2017;26(23-24):3832–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13787.
Johnson CC, Kennedy C, Fonner V, Siegfried N, Figueroa C, Dalal S, et al. Examining the effects of HIV self-testing compared to standard HIV testing services: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Int AIDS Soc. 2017;20:1.
Johnson LG, Armstrong A, Joyce CM, Teitelman AM, Buttenheim AM. Implementation strategies to improve cervical cancer prevention in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0718-9.
Johri M, Ako-Arrey D. The cost-effectiveness of preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2011;9(1):3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-9-3.
Kemp CG, Weiner BJ, Sherr KH, Kupfer LE, Cherutich PK, Wilson D, et al. Implementation science for integration of HIV and non-communicable disease services in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. AIDS. 2018;1(32):S93–S105.
Kennedy CE, Yeh PT, Atkins K, Fonner VA, Sweat MD, Oreilly KR, et al. Economic compensation interventions to increase uptake of voluntary medical male circumcision for HIV prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2020;15(1).
Kerkhoff AD, Kranzer K, Samandari T, Nakiyingi-Miiro J, Whalen CC, Harries AD, et al. Systematic review of TST responses in people living with HIV in under-resourced settings: implications for isoniazid preventive therapy. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49928. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049928.
Kranzer K, Govindasamy D, Ford N, Johnston V, Lawn SD. Quantifying and addressing losses along the continuum of care for people living with HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. J Int AIDS Soc. 2012;15:2.
Legido-Quigley H, Montgomery CM, Khan P, Atun R, Fakoya A, Getahun H, et al. Integrating tuberculosis and HIV services in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Tropical Med Int Health. 2013;18(2):199–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/tmi.12029.
Mavedzenge SNPMPH, Luecke EMPH, Ross DAMAMBP. Effective approaches for programming to reduce adolescent vulnerability to HIV infection, HIV risk, and HIV-related morbidity and mortality: a systematic review of systematic reviews. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014;1(66):S154–69.
Medley AP, Bachanas PP, Grillo MP, Hasen NP, Amanyeiwe UF. Integrating prevention interventions for people living with HIV into care and treatment programs: a systematic review of the evidence. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2015;15(68):S286–96.
Morris BJ, Moreton S, Krieger JN. Critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med. 2019;12(4):263–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12361.
Munthali C, Taegtmeyer M, Garner PG, Lalloo DG, Squire SB, Corbett EL, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the WHO clinical staging system for defining eligibility for ART in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Int AIDS Soc. 2014;17:1.
Murray KR, Dulli LS, Ridgeway K, Dal Santo L, Darrow de Mora D, Olsen P, et al. Improving retention in HIV care among adolescents and adults in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of the literature. PLoS One. 2017;12(9):e0184879. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184879.
Murray SFP, Hunter BMM, Bisht RP, Ensor TP, Bick DP. Demand-side financing measures to increase maternal health service utilisation and improve health outcomes: a systematic review of evidence from low- and middle-income countries. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2012;10(58):4165–567. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbisrir-2012-408.
Mwai GW, Mburu G, Torpey K, Frost P, Ford N, Seeley J. Role and outcomes of community health workers in HIV care in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. J Int AIDS Soc. 2013;16:1.
Remme M, Siapka M, Vassall A, Heise L, Jacobi J, Ahumada C, et al. The cost and cost-effectiveness of gender-responsive interventions for HIV: a systematic review. J Int AIDS Soc. 2014;17:1.
Ruiz-Perez IP, Murphy MMDMPH, Pastor-Moreno GMS, Rojas-Garcia AP, Rodriguez-Barranco MP. The effectiveness of HIV prevention interventions in socioeconomically disadvantaged ethnic minority women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(12):e13–21. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304067.
Ruzagira E, Baisley K, Kamali A, Biraro S, Grosskurth H, the Working Group on Linkage to HIVC, et al. Linkage to HIV care after home-based HIV counselling and testing in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Trop Med Int Health. 2017;22(7):807–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/tmi.12888.
Sabapathy K, Van den Bergh R, Fidler S, Hayes R, Ford N. Uptake of home-based voluntary HIV testing in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2012;9(12):e1001351. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001351.
Sekgaila MPB, Kuupiel DMPH, Mashamba-Thompson TPP. Acceptability of home-based human immunodeficiency virus testing and counseling in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic scoping review. Poin Care. 2018;17(4):112–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/POC.0000000000000172.
Sharma M, Ying R, Tarr G, Barnabas R. Systematic review and meta-analysis of community and facility-based HIV testing to address linkage to care gaps in sub-Saharan Africa. Nature. 2015;528(7580):S77–85. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16044.
Siapka M, Remme M, Obure CD, Maier CB, Dehne KL, Vassall A. Is there scope for cost savings and efficiency gains in HIV services? A systematic review of the evidence from low- and middle-income countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2014;92(7):499–511. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.13.127639.
Suthar AB, Ford N, Bachanas PJ, Wong VJ, Rajan JS, Saltzman AK, Ajose O, Fakoya AO, Granich RM, Negussie EK et al: Towards universal voluntary HIV testing and counselling: a systematic review and meta-analysis of community-based approaches. PLoS Med 2013, 10(8).
Suthar AB, Nagata JM, Nsanzimana S, Barnighausen T, Negussie EK, Doherty MC. Performance-based financing for improving HIV/AIDS service delivery: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1962-9.
Toska E, Pantelic M, Meinck F, Keck K, Haghighat R, Cluver L. Sex in the shadow of HIV: A systematic review of prevalence, risk factors, and interventions to reduce sexual risk-taking among HIV-positive adolescents and youth in sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS One. 2017;12(6).
Uyei J, Coetzee D, Macinko J, Guttmacher S. Integrated delivery of HIV and tuberculosis services in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis. 2011;11(11):855–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70145-1.
Vojnov L, Markby J, Boeke C, Harris L, Ford N, Peter T: POC CD4 testing improves linkage to HIV care and timeliness of ART initiation in a public health approach: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2016, 11(5).
Wettstein C, Mugglin C, Egger M, Blaser N, Vizcaya LS, Estill J, et al. Missed opportunities to prevent mother-to-child-transmission: systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS. 2012;26(18):2361–73.
Witzel TC, Lora W, Lees S, Desmond N. Uptake contexts and perceived impacts of HIV testing and counselling among adults in East and Southern Africa: a meta-ethnographic review. PLoS One. 2017;12(2).
Wynberg E, Cooke G, Shroufi A, Reid SD, Ford N. Impact of point-of-care CD4 testing on linkage to HIV care: a systematic review. J Int AIDS Soc. 2014;17:1.
Yi S, Tuot S, Mwai GW, Ngin C, Chhim K, Pal K, et al. Awareness and willingness to use HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Int AIDS Soc. 2017;20:1.
Drummond MF, Iglesias CP, Cooper NJ. Systematic reviews and economic evaluations conducted for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom: a game of two halves? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(2):146–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462308080203.
Meenan RT, Goodman MJ, Fishman PA, Hornbrook MC, MCO K-R, Bachman DJ. Issues in pooling administrative data for economic evaluation. Am J Manag Care. 2002;8(1):45–56.
Drummond M, Pang F. Transferability of economic evaluation results. Econ Eval Health Care. 2001:256–76.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9, w264. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135.
Kennedy CE, Fonner VA, Armstrong KA, Denison JA, Yeh PT, O’Reilly KR, et al. The evidence project risk of bias tool: assessing study rigor for both randomized and non-randomized intervention studies. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0925-0.
Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G, Fraser C, Ramsay CR, Vale L, et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(6) iii-iv, 1-72.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS)—explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16(2):231–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002.
Ofman JJ, Sullivan SD, Neumann PJ, Chiou C-F, Henning JM, Wade SW, et al. Examining the value and quality of health economic analyses: implications of utilizing the QHES. J Manag Care Pharm. 2003;9(1):53–61. https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2003.9.1.53.
Chiou C-F, Hay JW, Wallace JF, Bloom BS, Neumann PJ, Sullivan SD, et al. Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies. Med Care. 2003;41(1):32–44. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200301000-00007.
Grabbe KL, Menzies N, Taegtmeyer M, Emukule G, Angala P, Mwega I, et al. Increasing access to HIV counseling and testing through mobile services in Kenya: strategies, utilization, and cost-effectiveness. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;54(3):317–23.
Lasry A, Bachanas P, Suraratdecha C, Alwano MG, Behel S, Pals S, et al. Cost of community-based HIV testing activities to reach saturation in Botswana. AIDS Behav. 2019;23(4):875–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-019-02408-9.
McConnel CE, Stanley N, du Plessis JA, Pitter CS, Abdulla F, Coovadia HM, et al. The cost of a rapid-test VCT clinic in South Africa. S Afr Med J. 2005;95(12):968–71.
Pinto AD, van Lettow M, Rachlis B, Chan AK, Sodhi SK. Patient costs associated with accessing HIV/AIDS care in Malawi. J Int AIDS Soc. 2013;16:1.
Tumwesigye EMS, Wana GBS, Kasasa SMS, Muganzi EMD, Nuwaha FPD. High uptake of home-based, district-wide, HIV counseling and testing in Uganda. AIDS Patient Care Stds. 2010;24(11):735–41. https://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2010.0096.
Walensky RP, Wood R, Fofana MO, Martinson NA, Losina E, April MD, et al. The clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of routine, voluntary HIV screening in South Africa. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2011;56(1):26–35. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0b013e3181fb8f24.
Bogart LM, Wagner GJ, Musoke W, Naigino R, Linnemayr S, Maistrellis E, et al. A comparison of home-based versus outreach event-based community HIV testing in Ugandan fisherfolk communities. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(2):547–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-016-1629-x.
Cham HJ, MacKellar D, Maruyama H, Rwabiyago OE, Msumi O, Steiner C, et al. Methods, outcomes, and costs of a 2.5 year comprehensive facility-and community-based HIV testing intervention in Bukoba Municipal Council, Tanzania, 2014-2017. PLoS One. 2019;14(5).
Choko AT, Corbett EL, Stallard N, Maheswaran H, Lepine A, Johnson CC, et al. HIV self-testing alone or with additional interventions, including financial incentives, and linkage to care or prevention among male partners of antenatal care clinic attendees in Malawi: an adaptive multi-arm, multi-stage cluster randomised trial. PLoS Med. 2019;16(1):e1002719. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002719.
George G, Chetty T, Strauss M, Inoti S, Kinyanjui S, Mwai E, et al. Costing analysis of an SMS-based intervention to promote HIV self-testing amongst truckers and sex workers in Kenya. PLoS One. 2018;13(7):e0197305. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197305.
Maheswaran H, Petrou S, MacPherson P, Choko AT, Kumwenda F, Lalloo DG, et al. Cost and quality of life analysis of HIV self-testing and facility-based HIV testing and counselling in Blantyre, Malawi. BMC Med. 2016;14(1):34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0577-7.
Meehan SA, Beyers N, Burger R. Cost analysis of two community-based HIV testing service modalities led by a non-governmental organization in Cape Town, South Africa. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):801. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2760-8.
Mulogo EM, Batwala V, Nuwaha F, Aden AS, Baine OS. Cost effectiveness of facility and home based HIV voluntary counseling and testing strategies in rural Uganda. Afr Health Sci. 2013;13(2):423–9. https://doi.org/10.4314/ahs.v13i2.32.
Obure C, Vassall A, Michaels C, Terris-Prestholt F, Mayhew S, Stackpool-Moore L, et al. Optimising the cost and delivery of HIV counselling and testing services in Kenya and Swaziland. Sex Transm Infect. 2012;88(7):498–503. https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2012-050544.
Parker LA, Jobanputra K, Rusike L, Mazibuko S, Okello V, Kerschberger B, et al. Feasibility and effectiveness of two community-based HIV testing models in rural Swaziland. Tropical Med Int Health. 2015;20(7):893–902. https://doi.org/10.1111/tmi.12501.
Tabana H, Nkonki L, Hongoro C, Doherty T, Ekstrom AM, Naik R, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of a home-based HIV counselling and testing intervention versus the standard (facility based) HIV testing strategy in rural South Africa. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0135048. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135048.
de Beer I, Chani K, Feeley FG, Rinke de Wit TF, Sweeney-Bindels E, Mulongeni P. Assessing the costs of mobile voluntary counseling and testing at the work place versus facility based voluntary counseling and testing in Namibia. Rural Remote Health. 2015;15(4):3357.
French N, Mpiirwe B, Namara AH, Kyalo G. HIV testing strategies at a community clinic in Uganda. Aids. 1997;11(14):1779–80.
Negin J, Wariero J, Mutuo P, Jan S, Pronyk P. Feasibility, acceptability and cost of home-based HIV testing in rural Kenya. Tropical Med Int Health. 2009;14(8):849–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2009.02304.x.
Sweat M, Gregorich S, Sangiwa G, Furlonge C, Balmer D, Kamenga C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of voluntary HIV-1 counselling and testing in reducing sexual transmission of HIV-1 in Kenya and Tanzania. Lancet. 2000;356(9224):113–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02447-8.
Terris-Prestholt F, Kumaranayake L, Foster S, Kamali A, Kinsman J, Basajja V, et al. The role of community acceptance over time for costs of HIV and STI prevention interventions: analysis of the Masaka Intervention Trial, Uganda, 1996-1999. Sex Transm Dis. 2006;33(10 Suppl):S111–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.olq.0000175389.10289.ba.
Perriat D, Balzer L, Hayes R, Lockman S, Walsh F, Ayles H, et al. Comparative assessment of five trials of universal HIV testing and treatment in sub-Saharan Africa. J Int AIDS Soc. 2018;21(1):e25048. https://doi.org/10.1002/jia2.25048.
Rutstein SE, Brown LB, Biddle AK, Wheeler SB, Kamanga G, Mmodzi P, et al. Cost-effectiveness of provider-based HIV partner notification in urban Malawi. Health Policy Plan. 2014;29(1):115–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czs140.
M S, Smith JA, Farquhar C, Ying R, Cherutich P, Golden M, et al. Assisted partner notification services are cost-effective for decreasing HIV burden in western Kenya. AIDS. 2018;32(2):233–41.
Chang W, Chamie G, Mwai D, Clark TD, Thirumurthy H, Charlebois ED, et al. Cost and efficiency of a hybrid mobile multi-disease testing approach with high HIV testing coverage in East Africa. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016;73(3):e39.
Swaziland HIV. incidence measurement survey (SHIMS) First findings report. Mbabane, Swaziland: ICAP, PEPFAR, Swaziland Ministry of Health; 2012.
Office CS, UNICEF. Swaziland multiple indicator cluster survey 2010. Final Report. Mbabane, Swaziland: Swaziland Ministry of Health; 2011.
Obure CD, Vassall A, Michaels C, Terris-Prestholt F, Mayhew S, Stackpool-Moore L, et al. Integra research t: Optimising the cost and delivery of HIV counselling and testing services in Kenya and Swaziland. Sex Transm Infect. 2012;88(7):498–503. https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2012-050544.
Interactive data in Super CROSS 2011. [http://interactive.statssa.gov.za/superweb/login.do]
Tabana H, Doherty T, Swanevelder S, Lombard C, Jackson D, Zembe W, et al. Knowledge of HIV status prior to a community HIV counseling and testing intervention in a rural district of South Africa: results of a community based survey. BMC Infect Dis. 2012;12(1):1–8.
Mulogo EM, Abdulaziz AS, Guerra R, Baine SO. Facility and home based HIV Counseling and Testing: a comparative analysis of uptake of services by rural communities in southwestern Uganda. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-54.
MacKellar D, Steiner C, Rwabiyago OE, Cham HJ, Pals S, Maruyama H, Msumi O, Kundi G, Byrd J, Weber R, Madevu-Matson C, Kazaura K, Rutachunzibwa T, Mmari E, Morales F, Justman J, Cain K, Rwebembera A. Threefold Increases in Population HIV Viral Load Suppression Among Men and Young Adults - Bukoba Municipal Council, Tanzania, 2014-2017. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68(30):658–63. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6830a2.
MacKellar D, Maruyama H, Rwabiyago OE, Steiner C, Cham H, Msumi O, et al. Implementing the package of CDC and WHO recommended linkage services: methods, outcomes, and costs of the Bukoba Tanzania combination prevention evaluation peer-delivered, linkage case management program, 2014-2017. PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e0208919. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208919.
Choko AT, Kumwenda MK, Johnson CC, Sakala DW, Chikalipo MC, Fielding K, et al. Acceptability of woman-delivered HIV self-testing to the male partner, and additional interventions: a qualitative study of antenatal care participants in Malawi. J Int AIDS Soc. 2017;20(1):21610. https://doi.org/10.7448/IAS.20.1.21610.
Indravudh PP, Sibanda EL, d’Elbée M, Kumwenda MK, Ringwald B, Maringwa G, et al. ‘I will choose when to test, where I want to test’: investigating young people's preferences for HIV self-testing in Malawi and Zimbabwe. AIDS. 2017;31(Suppl 3):S203.
Smith P, Wallace M, Bekker LG. Adolescents’ experience of a rapid HIV self-testing device in youth-friendly clinic settings in Cape Town South Africa: a cross-sectional community based usability study. J Int AIDS Soc. 2016;19(1):21111. https://doi.org/10.7448/IAS.19.1.21111.
WHO. WHO Guidelines Approved by the Guidelines Review Committee. In: Guidelines on HIV Self-Testing and Partner Notification: Supplement to Consolidated Guidelines on HIV Testing Services. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.
WHO. Overview of HIV self-testing: Moving to implementation and impact. In: Chitembo L, Johnson C, editors. . Nairobi, Kenya: World Health Organization; 2017.
Unitaid WHO. Market and technology landscape: HIV rapid diagnostic tests for self-testing. Geneva: Unitaid, WHO; 2017.
Indravudh PP, Choko AT, Corbett EL. Scaling up HIV self-testing in sub-Saharan Africa: a review of technology, policy and evidence. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2018;31(1):14–24. https://doi.org/10.1097/QCO.0000000000000426.
WHO: Guidance on provider-initiated HIV testing and counselling in health facilities. 2007.
Brown W, Carballo-Diéguez A, John RM, Schnall R. Information, motivation, and behavioral skills of high-risk young adults to use the HIV self-test. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(9):2000–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-016-1309-x.
Rosenberg NE, Westreich D, Bärnighausen T, Miller WC, Behets F, Maman S, et al. Assessing the effect of HIV counseling and testing on HIV acquisition among South African youth. AIDS. 2013;27(17):2765.
Nowak RG, Mitchell A, Crowell TA, Liu H, Ketende S, Ramadhani HO, et al. Individual and sexual network predictors of HIV incidence among men who have sex with men in Nigeria. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2019;80(4):444.
Kennedy CE, Fonner VA, Sweat MD, Okero FA, Baggaley R, O'Reilly KR. Provider-initiated HIV testing and counseling in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(5):1571–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-012-0241-y.
Hlongwa M, Mashamba-Thompson T, Makhunga S, Muraraneza C, Hlongwana K. Men's perspectives on HIV self-testing in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-synthesis. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):66. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-8184-0.
Figueroa C, Johnson C, Verster A, Baggaley R. Attitudes and acceptability on HIV self-testing among key populations: a literature review. AIDS Behav. 2015;19(11):1949–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-015-1097-8.
Harichund C, Moshabela M, Kunene P, Abdool Karim Q. Acceptability of HIV self-testing among men and women in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. AIDS Care. 2019;31(2):186–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2018.1503638.
Choko AT, Desmond N, Webb EL, Chavula K, Napierala-Mavedzenge S, Gaydos CA, et al. The uptake and accuracy of oral kits for HIV self-testing in high HIV prevalence setting: a cross-sectional feasibility study in Blantyre, Malawi. PLoS Med. 2011;8(10):e1001102. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001102.
Collins LM. Optimization of behavioral, biobehavioral, and biomedical interventions: the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST): Springer; 2018.
Council NR. Considerations in applying benefit-cost analysis to preventive interventions for children, youth, and families: workshop summary: National Academies Press; 2014.
Vassall A, Sweeney S, Kahn J, Gomez Guillen G, Bollinger L, Marseille E, et al. Estimating the cost of health interventions: an introduction. In: Reference case for estimating the costs of global health services and interventions: Global Health Cost Consortium; 2017.
Doherty JE, Wilkinson T, Edoka I, Hofman K. Strengthening expertise for health technology assessment and priority-setting in Africa. Glob Health Action. 2017;10(1):1370194. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2017.1370194.
IJzerman MJ. Guideline for economic evaluations in healthcare. The Netherlands: National Health Care Institute; 2016.
UNAIDS. Costing Guidelines for HIV/AIDS Intervention Strategies. In: First Edition, February 2004. Geneva: Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) & Asian Development Bank (ADB); 2004.
Vassall A, Sweeney S, Kahn J, Gomez Guillen G, Bollinger L, Marseille E, et al. Reference case for estimating the costs of global health services and interventions; 2017.
Ronckers ET, Groot W, Ament A. Systematic review of economic evaluations of smoking cessation: standardizing the cost-effectiveness. Med Decis Mak. 2005;25(4):437–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X05278431.
Ronckers S, Ament A. Cost-effectiveness of treatment for tobacco dedpendence: a systematic review of the evidence; 2003.
Iwelunmor J, Nwaozuru U, Obiezu-Umeh C, Uzoaru F, Ehiri J, Curley J, et al. Is it time to RE-AIM? A systematic review of economic empowerment as HIV prevention intervention for adolescent girls and young women in sub-Saharan Africa using the RE-AIM framework. Implement Sci Commun. 2020;1(1):53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-020-00042-4.
Smith JD, Hasan M. Quantitative approaches for the evaluation of implementation research studies. Psychiatry Res. 2020;283:112521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112521.
Mukumbang FC, Orth Z, van Wyk B. What do the implementation outcome variables tell us about the scaling-up of the antiretroviral treatment adherence clubs in South Africa? A document review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17(1):28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0428-z.
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Jama. 2000;283(15):2008–12. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.15.2008.
Simunovic N, Sprague S, Bhandari M. Methodological issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies in orthopaedic research. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(Suppl 4):87–94. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.01576.
Chaiyakunapruk N, Saokaew S, Sruamsiri R, Dilokthornsakul P. Systematic review and network meta-analysis in health technology assessment. J Med Assoc Thai. 2014;97:S33–42.
For her assistance with the literature search, we would like to thank Donghua Tao, librarian at College for Public Health, School of Nursing Doisy College of Health Sciences, Saint Louis University.
This research was made possible by the funding from the National Institute of Health (NIH)–Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (NICHD), under the ITEST: Innovative Tools to Expand Youth-Friendly HIV Self-Testing (1UG3HD096929-01)
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Consent for publication
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Additional file 1.
Appendix A: Quality of health economic studies framework.
Additional file 2.
Appendix B: CHEERS checklist of items studies should include when reporting economic evaluation of health interventions.
Additional file 3.
Quality of health economic studies framework.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Uzoaru, F., Nwaozuru, U., Ong, J.J. et al. Costs of implementing community-based intervention for HIV testing in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Implement Sci Commun 2, 73 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-021-00177-y
- Economic evaluation
- Implementation cost
- HIV testing