Schaefer Robin, Gregson Simon, Takaruza Albert, Rhead Rebecca, Masoka Tidings, Schur Nadine, Anderson Sarah-Jane, Nyamukapa Constance
Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, Norfolk Place, London, UK.
Biomedical Research and Training Institute, 10 Seagrave Road, Harare, Zimbabwe.
J Int AIDS Soc. 2017 Feb 28;20(1):21409. doi: 10.7448/IAS.20.1.21409.
Focusing resources for HIV control on geographic areas of greatest need in countries with generalized epidemics has been recommended to increase cost-effectiveness. However, socioeconomic inequalities between areas of high and low prevalence could raise equity concerns and have been largely overlooked. We describe spatial patterns in HIV prevalence in east Zimbabwe and test for inequalities in accessibility and uptake of HIV services prior to the introduction of spatially-targeted programmes.
8092 participants in an open-cohort study were geo-located to 110 locations. HIV prevalence and HIV testing and counselling (HTC) uptake were mapped with ordinary kriging. Clusters of high or low HIV prevalence were detected with Kulldorff statistics, and the socioeconomic characteristics and sexual risk behaviours of their populations, and levels of local HIV service availability (measured in travel distance) and uptake were compared. Kulldorff statistics were also determined for HTC, antiretroviral therapy (ART), and voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) uptake.
One large and one small high HIV prevalence cluster (relative risk [RR] = 1.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.53-2.07; RR = 2.50, 95% CI = 2.08-3.01) and one low-prevalence cluster (RR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.60-0.82) were detected. The larger high-prevalence cluster was urban with a wealthier population and more high-risk sexual behaviour than outside the cluster. Despite better access to HIV services, there was lower HTC uptake in the high-prevalence cluster (odds ratio [OR] of HTC in past three years: OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.66-0.97). The low-prevalence cluster was predominantly rural with a poorer population and longer travel distances to HIV services; however, uptake of HIV services was not reduced.
High-prevalence clusters can be identified to which HIV control resources could be targeted. To date, poorer access to HIV services in the poorer low-prevalence areas has not resulted in lower service uptake, whilst there is significantly lower uptake of HTC in the high-prevalence cluster where health service access is better. Given the high levels of risky sexual behaviour and lower uptake of HTC services, targeting high-prevalence clusters may be cost-effective in this setting. If spatial targeting is introduced, inequalities in HIV service uptake may be avoided through mobile service provision for lower prevalence areas.
为提高成本效益,建议将艾滋病病毒(HIV)防控资源集中用于艾滋病广泛流行国家中最需要的地理区域。然而,高流行区和低流行区之间的社会经济不平等可能引发公平性问题,而这在很大程度上被忽视了。我们描述了津巴布韦东部HIV流行的空间模式,并在引入空间靶向项目之前,对HIV服务的可及性和利用情况的不平等进行了测试。
一项开放队列研究中的8092名参与者被定位到110个地点。使用普通克里金法绘制HIV流行率以及HIV检测与咨询(HTC)的利用情况图。用 Kulldorff统计量检测HIV高流行或低流行聚集区,并比较其人群的社会经济特征和性风险行为,以及当地HIV服务的可及性水平(以出行距离衡量)和利用情况。还确定了HTC、抗逆转录病毒治疗(ART)和自愿男性医学包皮环切术(VMMC)利用情况的Kulldorff统计量。
检测到一个大的和一个小的HIV高流行聚集区(相对风险[RR]=1.78,95%置信区间[CI]=1.53 - 2.07;RR = 2.50,95%CI = 2.08 - 3.01)和一个低流行聚集区(RR = 0.70,95%CI = 0.60 - 0.82)。较大的高流行聚集区为城市地区,与聚集区外相比,人口更富裕,高危性行为更多。尽管获得HIV服务的机会更好,但高流行聚集区的HTC利用率较低(过去三年HTC的优势比[OR]:OR = 0.80,95%CI = 0.66 - 0.97)。低流行聚集区主要为农村地区,人口较贫困,到HIV服务机构的出行距离更长;然而,HIV服务的利用率并未降低。
可以确定HIV防控资源可靶向的高流行聚集区。迄今为止,在较贫困的低流行地区,获得HIV服务的机会较差,但并未导致服务利用率降低,而在获得医疗服务机会较好的高流行聚集区,HTC的利用率显著较低。鉴于高危性行为水平较高且HTC服务利用率较低,在这种情况下,针对高流行聚集区可能具有成本效益。如果引入空间靶向措施,可通过为低流行地区提供移动服务来避免HIV服务利用方面的不平等。