| 1. |
- Kim, Sung Wook, et al.
(författare)
-
Socio-economic inequity in HIV testing in Malawi
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Global Health Action. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1654-9716 .- 1654-9880. ; 9, s. 1-15
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a significant contributor to Malawi's burden of disease. Despite a number of studies describing socio-economic differences in HIV prevalence, there is a paucity of evidence on socio-economic inequity in HIV testing in Malawi.OBJECTIVE: To assess horizontal inequity (HI) in HIV testing in Malawi.DESIGN: Data from the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHSs) 2004 and 2010 in Malawi are used for the analysis. The sample size for DHS 2004 was 14,571 (women =11,362 and men=3,209), and for DHS 2010 it was 29,830 (women=22,716 and men=7,114). The concentration index is used to quantify the amount of socio-economic-related inequality in HIV testing. The inequality is a primary method in this study. Corrected need, a further adjustment of the standard decomposition index, was calculated. Standard HI was compared with corrected need-adjusted inequity. Variables used to measure health need include symptoms of sexually transmitted infections. Non-need variables include wealth, education, literacy and marital status.RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2010, the proportion of the population ever tested for HIV increased from 15 to 75% among women and from 16 to 54% among men. The need for HIV testing among men was concentrated among the relatively wealthy in 2004, but the need was more equitably distributed in 2010. Standard HI was 0.152 in 2004 and 0.008 in 2010 among women, and 0.186 in 2004 and 0.04 in 2010 among men. Rural-urban inequity also fell in this period, but HIV testing remained pro-rich among rural men (HI 0.041). The main social contributors to inequity in HIV testing were wealth in 2004 and education in 2010.CONCLUSIONS: Inequity in HIV testing in Malawi decreased between 2004 and 2010. This may be due to the increased support to HIV testing by global donors over this period.
|
|
| 2. |
- Skordis-Worrall, Jolene, et al.
(författare)
-
Protocol for the economic evaluation of a community-based intervention to improve growth among children under two in rural India (CARING trial)
- 2016
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 2044-6055. ; 6:11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- INTRODUCTION: Undernutrition affects ∼165 million children globally and contributes up to 45% of all child deaths. India has the highest proportion of global undernutrition-related morbidity and mortality. This protocol describes the planned economic evaluation of a community-based intervention to improve growth in children under 2 years of age in two rural districts of eastern India. The intervention is being evaluated through a cluster-randomised controlled trial (cRCT, the CARING trial).METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis nested within a cRCT will be conducted from a societal perspective, measuring programme, provider, household and societal costs. Programme costs will be collected prospectively from project accounts using a standardised tool. These will be supplemented with time sheets and key informant interviews to inform the allocation of joint costs. Direct and indirect costs incurred by providers will be collected using key informant interviews and time use surveys. Direct and indirect household costs will be collected prospectively, using time use and consumption surveys. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) will be calculated for the primary outcome measure, that is, cases of stunting prevented, and other outcomes such as cases of wasting prevented, cases of infant mortality averted, life years saved and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of results.ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: There is a shortage of robust evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of strategies to improve early child growth. As this economic evaluation is nested within a large scale, cRCT, it will contribute to understanding the fiscal space for investment in early child growth, and the relative (in)efficiency of prioritising resources to this intervention over others to prevent stunting in this and other comparable contexts. The protocol has all necessary ethical approvals and the findings will be disseminated within academia and the wider policy sphere.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN51505201; pre-results.
|
|
