College of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, New York, United States of America.
International Center for Child Health and Development, Brown School, Washington University in Saint Louis, Saint Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2019 Dec 31;14(12):e0226809. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226809. eCollection 2019.
Children who have lost a parent to HIV/AIDS, known as AIDS orphans, face multiple stressors affecting their health and development. Family economic empowerment (FEE) interventions have the potential to improve these outcomes and mitigate the risks they face. We present efficacy and cost-effectiveness analyses of the Bridges study, a savings-led FEE intervention among AIDS-orphaned adolescents in Uganda at four-year follow-up.
Intent-to-treat analyses using multilevel models compared the effects of two savings-led treatment arms: Bridges (1:1 matched incentive) and BridgesPLUS (2:1 matched incentive) to a usual care control group on the following outcomes: self-rated health, sexual health, and mental health functioning. Total per-participant costs for each arm were calculated using the treatment-on-the-treated sample. Intervention effects and per-participant costs were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
Among 1,383 participants, 55% were female, 20% were double orphans. Mean age was 12 years at baseline. At 48-months, BridgesPLUS significantly improved self-rated health, (0.25, 95% CI 0.06, 0.43), HIV knowledge (0.21, 95% CI 0.01, 0.41), self-concept (0.26, 95% CI 0.09, 0.44), and self-efficacy (0.26, 95% CI 0.09, 0.43) and lowered hopelessness (-0.28, 95% CI -0.43, -0.12); whereas Bridges improved self-rated health (0.26, 95% CI 0.08, 0.43) and HIV knowledge (0.22, 95% CI 0.05, 0.39). ICERs ranged from $224 for hopelessness to $298 for HIV knowledge per 0.2 standard deviation change.
Most intervention effects were sustained in both treatment arms at two years post-intervention. Higher matching incentives yielded a significant and lasting effect on a greater number of outcomes among adolescents compared to lower matching incentives at a similar incremental cost per unit effect. These findings contribute to the evidence supporting the incorporation of FEE interventions within national social protection frameworks.
失去艾滋病毒/艾滋病父母的儿童,即艾滋病孤儿,面临着多种影响其健康和发展的压力源。家庭经济赋权(FEE)干预有可能改善这些结果,并减轻他们所面临的风险。我们介绍了 Bridges 研究的疗效和成本效益分析,这是乌干达艾滋病孤儿青少年中一项以储蓄为导向的 FEE 干预,在四年随访时进行。
采用多层次模型的意向治疗分析比较了两种以储蓄为导向的治疗臂的效果:Bridges(1:1 匹配激励)和 BridgesPLUS(2:1 匹配激励)与常规护理对照组在以下结果上的差异:自我评估健康、性健康和心理健康功能。使用治疗组样本计算每个组的每个参与者的总成本。干预效果和每个参与者的成本用于计算增量成本效益比(ICER)。
在 1383 名参与者中,55%为女性,20%为双孤儿。平均基线年龄为 12 岁。在 48 个月时,BridgesPLUS 显著改善了自我评估健康(0.25,95%CI 0.06,0.43)、艾滋病毒知识(0.21,95%CI 0.01,0.41)、自我概念(0.26,95%CI 0.09,0.44)和自我效能感(0.26,95%CI 0.09,0.43),降低了绝望感(-0.28,95%CI -0.43,-0.12);而 Bridges 则改善了自我评估健康(0.26,95%CI 0.08,0.43)和艾滋病毒知识(0.22,95%CI 0.05,0.39)。ICER 范围从每 0.2 标准差变化 224 美元用于绝望感,到每 0.2 标准差变化 298 美元用于艾滋病毒知识。
在干预后两年,两种治疗臂的大多数干预效果都得到了维持。与较低的匹配激励相比,较高的匹配激励在相似的单位效果增量成本下,对青少年的更多结果产生了显著且持久的影响。这些发现为支持将 FEE 干预纳入国家社会保护框架提供了证据。