Browsing by Author "Phiri J"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Economic evaluation of implementation science outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.
    (2022-Nov-16) Malhotra A; Thompson RR; Kagoya F; Masiye F; Mbewe P; Mosepele M; Phiri J; Sambo J; Barker A; Cameron DB; Davila-Roman VG; Effah W; Hutchinson B; Laxy M; Newsome B; Watkins D; Sohn H; Dowdy DW; Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.; Ezintsha, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.; Washington University in Saint Louis, Saint Louis, MO, USA.; University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.; Infectious Diseases Research Collaboration, Kampala, Uganda.; Center for Global Noncommunicable Diseases, RTI International, Seattle, WA, USA.; University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana.; Fogarty International Center (FIC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, USA.; Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. ddowdy1@jhmi.edu.; Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.; Cavendish University Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.; Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.; University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.; Department of Preventive Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.; CIDRZ; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia (CIDRZ)
    BACKGROUND: Historically, the focus of cost-effectiveness analyses has been on the costs to operate and deliver interventions after their initial design and launch. The costs related to design and implementation of interventions have often been omitted. Ignoring these costs leads to an underestimation of the true price of interventions and biases economic analyses toward favoring new interventions. This is especially true in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where implementation may require substantial up-front investment. This scoping review was conducted to explore the topics, depth, and availability of scientific literature on integrating implementation science into economic evaluations of health interventions in LMICs. METHODS: We searched Web of Science and PubMed for papers published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2021, that included components of both implementation science and economic evaluation. Studies from LMICs were prioritized for review, but papers from high-income countries were included if their methodology/findings were relevant to LMIC settings. RESULTS: Six thousand nine hundred eighty-six studies were screened, of which 55 were included in full-text review and 23 selected for inclusion and data extraction. Most papers were theoretical, though some focused on a single disease or disease subset, including: mental health (n = 5), HIV (n = 3), tuberculosis (n = 3), and diabetes (n = 2). Manuscripts included a mix of methodology papers, empirical studies, and other (e.g., narrative) reviews. Authorship of the included literature was skewed toward high-income settings, with 22 of the 23 papers featuring first and senior authors from high-income countries. Of nine empirical studies included, no consistent implementation cost outcomes were measured, and only four could be mapped to an existing costing or implementation framework. There was also substantial heterogeneity across studies in how implementation costs were defined, and the methods used to collect them. CONCLUSION: A sparse but growing literature explores the intersection of implementation science and economic evaluation. Key needs include more research in LMICs, greater consensus on the definition of implementation costs, standardized methods to collect such costs, and identifying outcomes of greatest relevance. Addressing these gaps will result in stronger links between implementation science and economic evaluation and will create more robust and accurate estimates of intervention costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this manuscript was published on the Open Science Framework. It is available at: https://osf.io/ms5fa/ (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/32EPJ).
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Mixed-methods protocol for the WiSSPr study: Women in Sex work, Stigma and psychosocial barriers to Pre-exposure prophylaxis in Zambia.
    (2024-Sep-05) Kumar R; Rao D; Sharma A; Phiri J; Zimba M; Phiri M; Zyambo R; Kalo GM; Chilembo L; Kunda PM; Mulubwa C; Ngosa B; Mugwanya KK; Barrington WE; Herce ME; Musheke M; Tithandizeni Umoyo Network, Lusaka, Zambia.; University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington, USA.; Zambia Sex Workers Alliance, Lusaka, Zambia.; Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.; Epidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington, USA.; Epidemiology; Child, Family, and Population Health Nursing; Health Systems and Population Health, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington, USA.; Epidemiology, Global Health, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington, USA.; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia ramya.kumar.mlk@gmail.com.; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.; Lusaka District Health Office, Zambia Ministry of Health, Lusaka, Zambia.; CIDRZ; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia (CIDRZ)
    INTRODUCTION: Women engaging in sex work (WESW) have 21 times the risk of HIV acquisition compared with the general population. However, accessing HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) remains challenging, and PrEP initiation and persistence are low due to stigma and related psychosocial factors. The WiSSPr (Women in Sex work, Stigma and PrEP) study aims to (1) estimate the effect of multiple stigmas on PrEP initiation and persistence and (2) qualitatively explore the enablers and barriers to PrEP use for WESW in Lusaka, Zambia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: WiSSPr is a prospective observational cohort study grounded in community-based participatory research principles with a community advisory board (CAB) of key population (KP) civil society organi sations (KP-CSOs) and the Ministry of Health (MoH). We will administer a one-time psychosocial survey vetted by the CAB and follow 300 WESW in the electronic medical record for three months to measure PrEP initiation (#/% ever taking PrEP) and persistence (immediate discontinuation and a medication possession ratio). We will conduct in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of 18 women, including 12 WESW and 6 peer navigators who support routine HIV screening and PrEP delivery, in two community hubs serving KPs since October 2021. We seek to value KP communities as equal contributors to the knowledge production process by actively engaging KP-CSOs throughout the research process. Expected outcomes include quantitative measures of PrEP initiation and persistence among WESW, and qualitative insights into the enablers and barriers to PrEP use informed by participants' lived experiences. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: WiSSPr was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the University of Zambia (#3650-2023) and University of North Carolina (#22-3147). Participants must give written informed consent. Findings will be disseminated to the CAB, who will determine how to relay them to the community and stakeholders.