↓ Skip to main content

Balancing efficiency, equity and feasibility of HIV treatment in South Africa – development of programmatic guidance

Overview of attention for article published in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Balancing efficiency, equity and feasibility of HIV treatment in South Africa – development of programmatic guidance
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1478-7547-11-26
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rob Baltussen, Evelinn Mikkelsen, Noor Tromp, AnneKarin Hurtig, Jens Byskov, Øystein Olsen, Kristine Bærøe, Jan A Hontelez, Jerome Singh, Ole F Norheim

Abstract

South Africa, the country with the largest HIV epidemic worldwide, has been scaling up treatment since 2003 and is rapidly expanding its eligibility criteria. The HIV treatment programme has achieved significant results, and had 1.8 million people on treatment per 2011. Despite these achievements, it is now facing major concerns regarding (i) efficiency: alternative treatment policies may save more lives for the same budget; (ii) equity: there are large inequalities in who receives treatment; (iii) feasibility: still only 52% of the eligible population receives treatment.Hence, decisions on the design of the present HIV treatment programme in South Africa can be considered suboptimal. We argue there are two fundamental reasons to this. First, while there is a rapidly growing evidence-base to guide priority setting decisions on HIV treatment, its included studies typically consider only one criterion at a time and thus fail to capture the broad range of values that stakeholders have. Second, priority setting on HIV treatment is a highly political process but it seems no adequate participatory processes are in place to incorporate stakeholders' views and evidences of all sorts.We propose an alternative approach that provides a better evidence base and outlines a fair policy process to improve priority setting in HIV treatment. The approach integrates two increasingly important frameworks on health care priority setting: accountability for reasonableness (A4R) to foster procedural fairness, and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to construct an evidence-base on the feasibility, efficiency, and equity of programme options including trade-offs. The approach provides programmatic guidance on the choice of treatment strategies at various decisions levels based on a sound conceptual framework, and holds large potential to improve HIV priority setting in South Africa.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 117 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 19%
Researcher 21 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Other 7 6%
Other 27 23%
Unknown 18 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 15%
Social Sciences 14 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 6%
Philosophy 5 4%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 23 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 November 2013.
All research outputs
#7,688,172
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#239
of 532 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,536
of 222,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 532 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 222,809 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.