Evaluating Alternative Designs of a Multilevel HIV Intervention in Maharashtra, India: The Impact of Stakeholder Constraints

Anik R. Patel, Kelly V. Ruggles, Kimberly Nucifora, Qinlian Zhou, Stephen Schensul, Jean Schensul, Kendall Bryant, R. Scott Braithwaite
2018 MDM Policy & Practice  
Background. Multilevel interventions combine individual component interventions, and their design can be informed by decision analysis. Our objective was to identify the optimal combination of interventions for alcohol-using HIV+ individuals on antiretroviral drug therapy in Maharashtra, India, explicitly considering stakeholder constraints. Methods. Using an HIV simulation, we evaluated the expected net monetary benefit (ENMB), the probability of lying on the efficiency frontier (PEF), and
more » ... al program costs of 5,836 unique combinations of 15 single-focused HIV risk-reduction interventions. We evaluated scenarios of 1) no constraints (i.e., maximize expected value), 2) short-term budget constraints (limits on annual programmatic costs of US$200,000 and $400,000), and 3) a constraint stemming from risk aversion (requiring that the strategy has >50% PEF). Results. With no constraints, the combination including long individual alcohol counseling, text-message adherence support, long group counseling for sex-risk, and long individual counseling for sex-risk (annual cost = $428,886; PEF ∼27%) maximized ENMB and would be the optimal design. With a cost constraint of $400,000, the combination including long individual alcohol counseling, text-message adherence support, brief group counseling for sex-risk, and long individual counseling for sex-risk (annual cost = $374,745; PEF ∼4%) maximized ENMB. With a cost constraint of $200,000, the combination including long individual alcohol counseling, text-message adherence support, and brief group counseling for sex-risk (annual cost = $187,335; PEF ∼54%) maximized ENMB. With the risk aversion constraint, the same configuration (long individual alcohol counseling, text-message support, and brief group counseling for sex-risk) maximized health benefit. Conclusion. Evaluating the costs, risks, and projected benefits of alternatives supports informed decision making prior to initiating study; however, stakeholder constraints should be explicitly included and discussed when using decision analyses to guide study design.
doi:10.1177/2381468318803940 pmid:30349875 pmcid:PMC6194934 fatcat:jsvucp3d4jdv5jdim7k3znn5xa