Costs of interventions for AIDS orphans and vulnerable children
ABSTRACT To review the published and grey literature for information regarding the costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving the welfare of orphans and vulnerable children owing to HIV/AIDS in low- and middle-income countries.
We carried out a search of the peer-reviewed literature through PubMed, EconLit, and Web of Science for the period January 2000 to December 2010. We also extensively reviewed the grey literature through generalized web searches and consultations with experts and searches of the web pages of the main organizations active in providing services to orphans and vulnerable children (OVC). The search yielded 216 articles; cross-sectional or longitudinal studies and articles that did not address specific interventions were not considered. The remaining 21 articles were categorized by domain and by type of intervention strategy.
All studies reviewed were carried out in sub-Saharan Africa. All outcomes are expressed as cost per child per year (in 2010 USD). Foster care estimates range from $614 to $1921. Educational support for primary school ranged from $30 to $75. Health interventions that would ensure child survival can be delivered for about $55.
More research is needed to improve planning and delivery of interventions for OVC. The paucity of cost and cost-effectiveness data reflects the limited number of effectiveness studies. Nevertheless, this systematic literature review shows evidence that suggests that in the area of housing, foster care appears to be more cost effective than institutional care (orphanages).
- SourceAvailable from: Carolina C Martins[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Information bias can occur in epidemiological studies and compromise scientific outcomes, especially when evaluating information given by a patient regarding their own health. The oral habits of children reported by their mothers are commonly used to evaluate tooth brushing practices and to estimate fluoride intake by children. The aim of the present study was to compare observed tooth-brushing habits of young children using fluoridated toothpaste with those reported by mothers. A sample of 201 mothers and their children (aged 24-48 months) from Montes Claros, Brazil, took part in a cross-sectional study. At day-care centres, the mothers answered a self-administered questionnaire on their child's tooth-brushing habits. The structured questionnaire had six items with two to three possible answers. An appointment was then made with each mother/child pair at day-care centres. The participants were asked to demonstrate the tooth-brushing practice as usually performed at home. A trained examiner observed and documented the procedure. Observed tooth brushing and that reported by mothers were compared for overall agreement using Cohen's Kappa coefficient and the McNemar test. Cohen's Kappa values comparing mothers' reports and tooth brushing observed by the examiner ranged from poor-to-good (0.00-0.75). There were statistically significant differences between observed tooth brushing habits and those reported by mothers (p < 0.001). When observed by the examiner, the frequencies of dentifrice dispersed on all bristles (35.9%), children who brushed their teeth alone (33.8%) and those who did not rinse their mouths during brushing (42.0%) were higher than those reported by the mothers (12.1%, 18.9% and 6.5%, respectively; p < 0.001). In general, there was low agreement between observed tooth brushing and mothers' reports. Moreover, the different methods of estimation resulted in differences in the frequencies of tooth brushing habits, indicative of reporting bias. Data regarding children's tooth-brushing habits as reported by mothers should be considered with caution in epidemiological surveys on fluoridated dentifrice use and the risk of dental fluorosis.BMC Oral Health 09/2011; 11:22. DOI:10.1186/1472-6831-11-22 · 1.15 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Federal expenditures are under scrutiny in the United States, and the merits of continuing and expanding the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) to support access to antiretroviral therapy have become a topic of debate. A growing body of research on the economic benefits of treatment with antiretroviral therapy has important implications for these discussions. For example, research conducted since the inception of PEPFAR shows that HIV-infected adults who receive antiretroviral therapy often begin or resume productive work, and that children living in households with infected adults who are on treatment are more likely to attend school than those in households with untreated adults. These benefits should be considered when weighing the overall benefits of providing antiretroviral therapy against its costs, particularly in the context of discussions about the future of PEPFAR. A modest case can also be made in favor of having private companies in HIV-affected countries provide antiretroviral therapy to their employees and dependents, thus sharing some of the burden of funding HIV treatment.Health Affairs 07/2012; 31(7):1470-7. DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0217 · 4.64 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The advent of treatment as prevention (TasP) and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as means of HIV prevention raises issues of justice concerning how most fairly and equitably to apportion resources in support of the burgeoning variety of established HIV treatment and prevention measures and further HIV research, including HIV vaccine research. We apply contemporary approaches to social justice to assess the ethical justification for allocating resources in support of HIV vaccine research given competing priorities to support broad implementation of HIV treatment and prevention measures, including TasP and PrEP. We argue that there is prima facie reason to believe that a safe and effective preventative HIV vaccine would offer a distinct set of ethically significant benefits not provided by current HIV treatment or prevention methods. It is thereby possible to justify continued support for HIV vaccine research despite tension with priorities for treatment, prevention, and other research. We then consider a counter-argument to such a justification based on the uncertainty of successfully developing a safe and effective preventive HIV vaccine. Finally, we discuss how HIV vaccine research might now be ethically designed and conducted given the new preventive options of TasP and PrEP, focusing on the ethically appropriate standard of prevention for HIV vaccine trials.Current HIV research 09/2013; DOI:10.2174/1570162X113116660054 · 2.14 Impact Factor