Suchergebnisse

The rapid scale-up of antiretroviral treatment (ART) for HIV since the mid-2000s, mostly through disease-specific or "vertical" programmes, has been a highly successful undertaking, which averted millions of deaths and prevented many new infections. However, the dynamics of the HIV epidemic and changing political and financial commitment to fight the disease will likely require new models for the delivery of ART over the coming decades if the promises of universal treatment are to be met. Delivery model innovations for ART are intended to improve both the effectiveness and efficiency of the HIV treatment cascade, reaching new people who require ART and providing ART to more people without an increase in resources. We describe twelve models for ART delivery, which could be achieved through five categories of delivery innovations: integrating ART ("vertical ART plus", "partially-integrated ART" and "fully-integrated ART"); modifying steps in the ART value chain ("professional task-shifted ART", "people task-shifted ART" and "technology-supported ART"); eliminating steps in the ART value chain ("immediate ART" and "less frequent ART pick-up"); changing ART locations ("private-sector ART", "traditional-sector ART" and "ART outside the health sector"); and keeping the status quo ("vertical ART"). The different delivery model innovations are not mutually exclusive and several could be combined, such as "vertical ART plus" with "task-shifted ART". Suitability of the models will highly depend on local and national contexts, including existing health systems resources, available funding, and type of HIV epidemic. Future implementation research needs to identify which models are the best fit for diff

Priority setting of health interventions is generally considered as a valuable approach to support low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in their strive for universal health coverage (UHC). However, present initiatives on priority setting are mainly geared towards the development of more cost-effectiveness information, and this evidence does not sufficiently support countries to make optimal choices. The reason is that priority setting is in reality a value-laden political process in which multiple criteria beyond cost-effectiveness are important, and stakeholders often justifiably disagree about the relative importance of these criteria. Here, we propose the use of 'evidence-informed deliberative processes' as an approach that does explicitly recognise priority setting as a political process and an intrinsically complex task. In these processes, deliberation between stakeholders is crucial to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, informed by evidence on these values. Such processes then result in the use of a broader range of explicit criteria that can be seen as the product of both international learning ('core' criteria, which include eg, cost-effectiveness, priority to the worse off, and financial protection) and learning among local stakeholders ('contextual' criteria). We believe that, with these evidence-informed deliberative processes in place, priority setting can provide a more meaningful contribution to achieving UHC.

__Background__ The control or elimination of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) has targets defined by the WHO for 2020, reinforced by the 2012 London Declaration. We estimated the economic impact to individuals of meeting these targets for human African trypanosomiasis, leprosy, visceral leishmaniasis and Chagas disease, NTDs controlled or eliminated by innovative and intensified disease management (IDM). __Methods__ A systematic literature review identified information on productivity loss and out-of-pocket payments (OPPs) related to these NTDs, which were combined with projections of the number of people suffering from each NTD, country and year for 2011±2020 and 2021±2030. The ideal scenario in which the WHO's 2020 targets are met was compared with a counterfactual scenario that assumed the situation of 1990 stayed unaltered. Economic benefit equaled the difference between the two scenarios. Values are reported in 2005 US$, purchasing power parity-adjusted, discounted at 3% per annum from 2010. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to quantify the degree of uncertainty around the base-case impact estimate. __Results__ The total global productivity gained for the four IDM-NTDs was I$ 23.1 (I$ 15.9 ±I$ 34.0) billion in 2011±2020 and I$ 35.9 (I$ 25.0 ±I$ 51.9) billion in 2021±2030 (2.5th and 97.5th percentiles in brackets), corresponding to US$ 10.7 billion (US$ 7.4 ±US$ 15.7) and US$ 16.6 billion (US$ 11.6 ±US$ 24.0). Reduction in OPPs was I$ 14 billion (US$ 6.7 billion) and I$ 18 billion (US$ 10.4 billion) for the same periods. __Conclusions__ We faced important limitations to our work, such as finding no OPPs for leprosy. We had to combine limited data from various sources, heterogeneous background, and of variable quality. Nevertheless, based on conservative assumptions and subsequent uncertainty analyses, we estimate that the benefits of achieving the targets are considerable. Under plausible scenarios, the economic benefits far exceed the necessary investments by endemic country governments and their development partners. Given the higher frequency of NTDs among the poorest househo