Nijmegen International Center for Health Systems Research and Education (NICHE), Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 Jul 7;10:197. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-197.
Although a sizeable budget is available for HIV/AIDS control in Thailand, there will never be enough resources to implement every programme for all target groups at full scale. As such, there is a need to prioritize HIV/AIDS programmes. However, as of yet, there is no evidence on the criteria that should guide the priority setting of HIV/AIDS programmes in Thailand, including their relative importance. Also, it is not clear whether different stakeholders share similar preferences.
Criteria for priority setting of HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand were identified in group discussions with policy makers, people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), and community members (i.e. village health volunteers (VHVs)). On the basis of these, discrete choice experiments were designed and administered among 28 policy makers, 74 PLWHA, and 50 VHVs.
In order of importance, policy makers expressed a preference for interventions that are highly effective, that are preventive of nature (as compared to care and treatment), that are based on strong scientific evidence, that target high risk groups (as compared to teenagers, adults, or children), and that target both genders (rather than only men or women). PLWHA and VHVs had similar preferences but the former group expressed a strong preference for care and treatment for AIDS patients.
The study has identified criteria for priority setting of HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand, and revealed that different stakeholders have different preferences vis-à-vis these criteria. This could be used for a broad ranking of interventions, and as such as a basis for more detailed priority setting, taking into account also qualitative criteria.
尽管泰国在艾滋病毒/艾滋病防治方面有相当大的预算，但永远没有足够的资源来全面实施针对所有目标群体的所有方案。因此，有必要对艾滋病毒/艾滋病方案进行优先排序。然而，到目前为止，还没有关于指导泰国艾滋病毒/艾滋病方案优先排序的标准的证据，包括这些标准的相对重要性。此外，也不清楚不同的利益攸关方是否有相似的偏好。
通过与政策制定者、艾滋病毒感染者/艾滋病患者和社区成员（即乡村卫生志愿者）进行小组讨论，确定了泰国艾滋病毒/艾滋病干预措施的优先排序标准。在此基础上，为 28 名政策制定者、74 名艾滋病毒感染者/艾滋病患者和 50 名乡村卫生志愿者设计并实施了离散选择实验。
按重要性顺序排列，政策制定者优先考虑那些非常有效的、具有预防性质的（与护理和治疗相比）、基于强有力的科学证据的、针对高风险群体的（与青少年、成年人或儿童相比）、以及针对两性的（而不是只针对男性或女性）干预措施。艾滋病毒感染者/艾滋病患者和乡村卫生志愿者有类似的偏好，但前者强烈偏好为艾滋病患者提供护理和治疗。
本研究确定了泰国艾滋病毒/艾滋病干预措施的优先排序标准，并揭示了不同利益攸关方对这些标准的不同偏好。这可用于广泛地对干预措施进行排名，并在此基础上进行更详细的优先排序，同时考虑到定性标准。
