Top

BMC Health Services Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Criteria for prioritization of HIV programs in Viet Nam: a discrete choice experiment

Authors: Ali Safarnejad, Milena Pavlova, Vo Hai Son, Huynh Lan Phuong, Wim Groot

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2017

Abstract

Background

With the decline in funding for Viet Nam’s response to the HIV epidemic, there is a need for evidence on the criteria to guide the prioritization of HIV programs. There is a gap in the research on the relative importance of multiple criteria for prioritizing a package of interventions. This study elicits preferences and the trade-offs made between different HIV programs by relevant stakeholders and decision-makers in Viet Nam. It also pays attention to how differences in social and professional characteristics of stakeholders and their agency affiliations shape preferences for HIV program criteria in Viet Nam.

Methods

This study uses self-explicated ranking and discrete choice experiments to determine the relative importance of five criteria - effectiveness, feasibility, cost-effectiveness, rate of investment and prevention/treatment investment ratio - to stakeholders when they evaluate and select hypothetical HIV programs. The study includes 69 participants from government, civil society, and international development partners.

Results

Results of the discrete choice experiment show that overall the feasibility criterion is ranked highest in importance to the participants when choosing a hypothetical HIV program, followed by sustainability, treatment to prevention spending ratio, and effectiveness. The participant’s work in management, programming, or decision-making has a significant effect on the importance of some criteria to the participant. In the self-explicated ranking effectiveness is the most important criterion and the cost-effectiveness criterion ranks low in importance across all groups.

Conclusions

This study has shown that the preferred HIV program in Viet Nam is feasible, front-loaded for sustainability, has a higher proportion of investment on prevention, saves more lives and prevents more infections. Similarities in government and civil society rankings of criteria can create common grounds for future policy dialogues between stakeholders. Innovative models of planning should be utilized to allow inputs of informed stakeholders at relevant stages of the HIV program planning process.

Available only for authorised users

The Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. Decision of the prime minister approving the National Strategy on HIV/AIDS prevention and control in Viet Nam till 2010 with a vision to 2020. Hanoi: Government of Viet Nam; 2004.

General Statistical Office at the National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology/Vietnam and ORC Macro. Vietnam population and AIDS indicator survey 2005 [internet]. Calverton: GSO, NIHE, and ORC Macro; 2006. Available from: http://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/AIS3/AIS3.pdf.

UNAIDS. AIDSinfo [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2016 Aug 26]. Available from: http://aidsinfo.unaids.org/.

Vietnam Authority of HIV/AIDS Control. Mid-term review of the targets of the political declaration on HIV. Hanoi: Vietnam Authority of HIV/AIDS Control; 2013.

Viet Nam Ministry of Health. Optimizing Viet Nam’s HIV response: an investment case [internet]. Hanoi: Viet Nam Ministry of Health; 2014. Available from: http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/country/documents/VNM_narrative_report_2015.pdf.

Vietnam Ministry of Planning and Investment. Country report, vol. 15. Viet Nam: Years of Achieving the Viet Nam Millenium Development Goals. Hanoi; 2015.

World Bank. Vietnam: achieving success as a middle-income country [internet]. 2013. [cited 2016 Aug 28]. Available from: http://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2013/04/12/vietnam-achieving-success-as-a-middle-income-country.

United Nations Development Programme, Bureau for Development Policy. Official development assistance. In: Garmer L, editor. Towar. Hum. Resil. Sustain. MDG Prog. An age Econ. Uncertain. [internet]. New York: UNDP; 2011. p. 144–83. Available from: http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/Poverty%20Reduction/Towards_SustainingMDG_Web1005.pdf.

Health Finance & Governance. Mobilizing domestic funding, resources to fight HIV and AIDS [internet]. 2014. [cited 2016 Jul 19]. Available from: https://www.hfgproject.org/mobilizing-domestic-resources-hiv-aids.

10.

Vietnam Ministry of Health. Joint annual health review 2015: strengthening primary health care at the grassroots towards universal health coverage [internet]. Hanoi: Vietnam Ministry of Health; 2016. Available from: http://jahr.org.vn/downloads/JAHR2015/JAHR2015_full_EN.pdf.

11.

Minh T. Deputy PM Vu Duc Dam gave priority to HIV/AIDS prevention [Internet]. The Hanoitimes. 2016. [cited 2017 Mar 27]. Available from: http://hanoitimes.com.vn/health-education/2016/06/81e0a485/deputy-pm-vu-duc-dam-gave-priority-to-hiv-aids-prevention/.

12.

KFF, UNAIDS. Financing the response to AIDS in low- and middle-income countries: international assistance from donor governments in 2015 [internet]. Menlo Park: KFF, UNAIDS; 2016. Available from: http://files.kff.org/attachment/Financing-the-Response-to-HIV-in-Low-and-Middle-Income-Countries-International-Assistance-from-Donor-Governments-in-2015.

13.

UNAIDS. Kaiser/UNAIDS study finds donor government funding for HIV fell in 2015 for first time in 5 years [Internet]. UNAIDS. 2016 [cited 2017 Feb 26]. Available from: http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/pressreleaseandstatementarchive/2016/july/20150815_kaiser.

14.

Zhang L, Maher L, Pham QD, Higgs P, Anh ND, Duc BH, et al. Evaluation of a decade of DFID and World Bank supported HIV and AIDS programmes in Vietnam from 2003 to 2012 [Internet]. Sydney: The University of New South Wales; 2012. Available from: http://optimamodel.com/pubs/vietnam-report2.pdf.

15.

Youngkong S, Baltussen R, Tantivess S, Koolman X, Teerawattananon Y. Criteria for priority setting of HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:197. Available from: http://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6963-10-197 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Baltussen R, Youngkong S, Paolucci F, Niessen L. Multi-criteria decision analysis to prioritize health interventions: capitalizing on first experiences. Health Policy (New York). 2010;96:262–4. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.01.009CrossRef

17.

Tromp N, Prawiranegara R, Siregar A, Jansen MPM, Baltussen R. Time to recognise countries’ preferences in HIV control. Lancet. 2016;387:1053–4. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673616006590 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Leelahavarong P, Teerawattananon Y, Werayingyong P, Akaleephan C, Premsri N, Namwat C, et al. Is a HIV vaccine a viable option and at what price? An economic evaluation of adding HIV vaccination into existing prevention programs in Thailand. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:534. Available from: http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-11-534.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Kabaniha GA. A novel approach to priority-setting for HIV prevention among adults in Uganda [Internet]. Burwood: Deakin University; 2014. Available from: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33199777.pdf

20.

Hogan DR. Cost effectiveness analysis of strategies to combat HIV/AIDS in developing countries. BMJ. 2005;331:1431–7. Available from: http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7530/1431.

21.

Newman PA, Cameron MP, Roungprakhon S, Tepjan S, Scarpa R. Acceptability and preferences for hypothetical rectal Microbicides among a community sample of young men who have sex with men and transgender women in Thailand: a discrete choice experiment. AIDS Behav. 2016;20:2588–601. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10461-015-1258-9CrossRefPubMed

22.

Verguet S. Efficient and equitable HIV prevention: a case study of male circumcision in South Africa. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2013;11:1. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-11-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Baltussen R, Mikkelsen E, Tromp N, Hurtig A, Byskov J, Olsen O, et al. Balancing efficiency, equity and feasibility of HIV treatment in South Africa - development of programmatic guidance. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2013;11:26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Walensky RP, Wood R, Ciaranello AL, Paltiel AD, Lorenzana SB, Anglaret X, et al. Scaling up the 2010 World Health Organization HIV treatment guidelines in resource-limited settings: a model-based analysis. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000382. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000382.

25.

Tromp N, Prawiranegara R, Subhan Riparev H, Siregar A, Sunjaya D, Baltussen R. Priority setting in HIV/AIDS control in West Java Indonesia: an evaluation based on the accountability for reasonableness framework. Health Policy Plan. 2015;30:345–55. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/heapol/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/heapol/czu020.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Husain S, Kadir M, Fatmi Z. Resource allocation within the national AIDS control program of Pakistan: a qualitative assessment of decision maker’s opinions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:11. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-7-11CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Louviere JJ, Flynn TN, Carson RT. Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. J Choice Model. 2010;3:57–72. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534513700149 CrossRef

28.

Luyten J, Kessels R, Goos P, Beutels P. Public preferences for prioritizing preventive and curative health care interventions: a discrete choice experiment. Value Heal. 2015;18:224–33. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098301514047937 CrossRef

29.

van de Schoot T, Pavlova M, Atanasova E, Groot W. Preferences of Bulgarian consumers for quality, access and price attributes of healthcare services-result of a discrete choice experiment. Int J Health Plann Manag. 2017;32:e47–71. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/hpm.2325 CrossRef

30.

Mirelman A, Mentzakis E, Kinter E, Paolucci F, Fordham R, Ozawa S, et al. Decision-making criteria among National Policymakers in five countries: a discrete choice experiment eliciting relative preferences for equity and efficiency. Value Heal. 2012;15:534–9. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1098301512014507 CrossRef

31.

Larson E, Vail D, Mbaruku GM, Kimweri A, Freedman LP, Kruk ME. Moving toward patient-centered Care in Africa: a discrete choice experiment of preferences for delivery care among 3,003 Tanzanian women. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0135621. Available from: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135621.

32.

Green C, Gerard K. Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2009;18:951–76. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/hec.1414 CrossRefPubMed

33.

Safarnejad A, Groot W, Pavlova M. A systematic review on priority setting to halt and reverse the HIV and AIDS epidemic. In: Safarnejad A, editor. Prioritizing HIV Response A multi-criteria Decis. Anal. Maastricht: Boekenplan; 2017. p. 17–40.

34.

Hedayat AS, Sloane NJA, Stufken J. Orthogonal arrays [internet]. 1st ed. Springer New York: New York; 1999. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4612-1478-6 CrossRef

35.

Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. From Principle to Practice. Greater involvement of people living with or affected by HIV/AIDS (GIPA). Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. From Principle to Practice: Geneva; 1999.

36.

GFATM. Guidelines and Requirements for Country Coordinating Mechanisms [Internet]. Glob. Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberc. Malar. 2013 [cited 2017 Jan 1]. Available from:https://www.theglobalfund.org/media/1285/ccm_requirements_guidelines_en.pdf.

37.

Country Coordinating Mechanism Vietnam. CCM MEMBER LIST [Internet]. CCM Secr. 2015 [cited 2017 Mar 28]. Available from: http://ccmvietnam.gov.vn/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=65&Itemid=157&lang=en.

38.

The Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. Second country report on following up to the declaration of commitment on HIV/AIDS. The Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam: Hanoi; 2006.

39.

Heckathorn DD. Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 1997;44:174–99. The Oxford University PressCrossRef

40.

Guindo LA, Wagner M, Baltussen R, Rindress D, van Til J, Kind P, et al. From efficacy to equity: literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012;10:9. Available from: http://resource-allocation.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1478-7547-10-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Atun R, Chang AY, Ogbuoji O, Silva S, Resch S, Hontelez J, et al. Long-term financing needs for HIV control in sub-Saharan Africa in 2015–2050: a modelling study. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e009656. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4785296.

42.

Granich RM, Gilks CF, Dye C, De Cock KM, Williams BG. Universal voluntary HIV testing with immediate antiretroviral therapy as a strategy for elimination of HIV transmission: a mathematical model. Lancet. 2017;373:48–57. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61697-9. ElsevierCrossRef

43.

Montaner JSG, Lima VD, Barrios R, Yip B, Wood E, Kerr T, et al. Association of highly active antiretroviral therapy coverage, population viral load, and yearly new HIV diagnoses in British Columbia, Canada: a population-based study. Lancet. 2010;376:532–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Gardner EM, McLees MP, Steiner JF, del Rio C, Burman WJ. The Spectrum of engagement in HIV care and its relevance to test-and-treat strategies for prevention of HIV infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52:793–800. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciq243.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Kilmarx PH, Mutasa-Apollo T. Patching a leaky pipe. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2012;8:59–64.

46.

Raymond A, Hill A, Pozniak A. Large disparities in HIV treatment cascades between eight European and high-income countries – analysis of break points. J. Int. AIDS Soc. 2014;17:19507. Available from: http://www.jiasociety.org/index.php/jias/article/view/19507.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Hanson K. Delivering health services: incentives and information in supply-side innovations. In: Smith RD, Hanson K, editors. Heal. Syst. low-and middle-income Ctries. An Econ. policy Perspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 103–24.

48.

Örtengren K. The logical framework approach: a summary of the theory behind the LFA method [internet]. Stockholm: Sida; 2004. Available from: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan032558.pdf.

49.

Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Public Health Strategies to Improve Health. Measurement and accountability. Public’s Heal. Role Meas. Action Account. [Internet]. Washington (DC): Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Public Health Strategies to Improve Health; 2011. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209715/.

50.

Edejer TT-T, Baltussen R, Adam T, Hutubessy R, Acharya A, Evans DB, et al. Making choices in health: WHO guide to cost-effectiveness analysis [internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003. Available from: http://www.who.int/choice/publications/p_2003_generalised_cea.pdf.

51.

Neumann PJ. Using cost-effectiveness analysis to improve health care: opportunities and barriers. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.CrossRef

52.

Kaló Z, Gheorghe A, Huic M, Csanádi M, Kristensen FB. HTA implementation roadmap in central and eastern European countries. Health Econ. 2016;25:179–92. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3298.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

53.

Kaló Z, Bodrogi J, Boncz I, Dózsa C, Jóna G, Kövi R, et al. Capacity building for HTA implementation in middle-income countries: the case of Hungary. Value Heal Reg Issues. 2013;2:264–6. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212109913000654.CrossRef

54.

Pham QD, Wilson DP, Kerr CC, Shattock AJ, Do HM, Duong AT, et al. Estimating the cost-effectiveness of HIV prevention programmes in Vietnam, 2006–2010: a modelling study. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0133171. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0133171.

Title: Criteria for prioritization of HIV programs in Viet Nam: a discrete choice experiment
Authors: Ali Safarnejad
Milena Pavlova
Vo Hai Son
Huynh Lan Phuong
Wim Groot
Publication date: 01-12-2017
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2679-0

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Criteria for prioritization of HIV programs in Viet Nam: a discrete choice experiment

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

The three paradoxes of patient flow: an explanatory case study

Patient safety culture in Norwegian nursing homes

Erratum to: The potential effectiveness of the nutrition improvement program on infant and young child feeding and nutritional status in the Northwest and Southwest regions of Cameroon, Central Africa

Assessment of the efficiency of language interpreter services in a busy surgical and procedural practice

Erratum to: Treating the invisible: Gaps and opportunities for enhanced TB control along the Thailand-Myanmar border

A systematic review of the economic impact of rapid diagnostic tests for dengue