Abstract Background Although HIV testing in family planning (FP) clinics is a promising approach for engaging women in HIV treatment and prevention services, HIV testing rates are low in FP clinics in Kenya. In 2018, a cluster randomized trial was implemented in Mombasa, Kenya applying the Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach (SAIA) to integrate HIV testing into FP services (1K24HD088229-01). We estimated the incremental costs and explored cost drivers of the FP HIV SAIA implementation in Mombasa, Kenya. Methods We conducted a costing evaluation from the payer perspective for the FP HIV SAIA randomized control trial. We identified relevant activities for the intervention including start-up, training, research and FP HIV SAIA. We estimated activity time burden using a time-and motion study. We derived unit costs through staff interviews and programmatic budgets. We present cost estimates for two different scenarios: as-implemented including research and projected costs for a Ministry of Health-supported intervention. All costs are reported in 2018 USD. Results For an annual program output of 36,086 HIV tests administered to new FP clients, we estimated the total annual program cost to be $91,994 with an average cost per new FP client served of $2.55. Personnel and HIV rapid testing kits comprised 55% and 21% of programmatic costs, respectively. Assuming no changes to program outputs and with efficiency gains under the MOH scenario, the estimated cost per new FP client served decreased to $1.30 with a programmatic cost reduction of 49%. Conclusion FP HIV SAIA is a low-cost and flexible implementation strategy for facilitating integrated delivery of HIV testing alongside FP services. Although cost implications of the FP HIV SAIA intervention must continue to be evaluated over time, these findings provide context-specific cost data useful for budget planning and decision-making regarding intervention delivery and expansion. Trial registration The trial was registered on December 15, 2016, with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02994355).
Abstract Background Cervical cancer is the most common cancer in sub-Saharan Africa. With appropriate screening and treatment, cervical cancer can be prevented. In Kenya, cervical cancer screening is recommended for all women of reproductive age who visit a health facility. In particular, the Kenyan Ministry of Health has tasked family planning clinics and HIV clinics with implementing cervical cancer screening as part of the overall cervical cancer screening strategy. A cross-sectional survey was conducted to understand cervical cancer screening practices and explore clinic-level barriers and facilitators to screening in family planning clinics (FP) in Mombasa County, Kenya. Methods Structured interviews were conducted with randomly sampled FP clinic managers to collect information about clinic size, location, type, management support, infrastructure, screening practices, and availability of screening commodities. Data were abstracted from FP registers for a 15-month period from October 1, 2017 until December 31, 2018 to understand cervical cancer screening prevalence. Generalized linear models were used to calculate prevalence ratios (PR) and identify clinic-level correlates of reporting any cervical cancer screening. Results A total of 70 clinics were sampled, 54% (38) were urban and 27% (19) were public facilities. The median number of staff in a clinic was 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 2–6) with a median of 1 provider trained to perform screening (IQR 0–3). Fifty-four percent (38/70) of clinic managers reported that their clinics performed cervical cancer screening. Of these, only 87% (33) and 71% (27) had dependable access to speculums and acetic acid, respectively. Being a public FP clinic was associated with higher prevalence of reported screening (14/38 [37%] vs 6/32 [16%]; prevalence rate ratio [PR] 1.57, 95%CI 1.05–2.33). Clinics that reported cervical cancer screening were much more likely to have at least one provider trained to perform cervical cancer screening (84%, 32/38) compared to clinics that did not report screening (28%, 9/32; PR 3.77, 95%CI 1.82–7.83). Conclusion Integration of cervical cancer screening into FP clinics offers great potential to reach large numbers of reproductive-aged women. Increasing training of healthcare providers and ensuring adequate commodity supplies in FP clinics offer concrete solutions to increase screening in a largely unscreened population.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23001489' d='M0 0v6h9V0z'/%3e%3cpath fill='%23e03c31' d='M0 0v3h9V0z'/%3e%3cg stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='2'%3e%3cpath id='d' d='m0 0 4.5 3L0 6m4.5-3H9'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23b' stroke='%23ffb81c' clip-path='url(%23c)'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23d' fill='none' stroke='%23007749' stroke-width='1.2'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
