2020
DOI: 10.1002/jia2.25445
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimating the costs and cost‐effectiveness of HIV self‐testing among men who have sex with men, United States

Abstract: Introduction HIV testing is an essential prerequisite for accessing treatment with antiretroviral therapy or prevention using pre‐exposure prophylaxis. Internet distribution of HIV self‐tests is a novel approach, and data on the programmatic cost of this approach are limited. We analyse the costs and cost‐effectiveness of a self‐testing programme. Methods Men who have sex with men (MSM) reporting unknown or negative HIV status were enrolled from March to August 2015 into a 12‐month trial of HIV self‐testing in… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
46
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
2
46
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The only comparative self-testing cost study is one which recently reported in the U.S. and has shown comparable values to those reported here [ 27 ]. The U.S. values were $US61 per self-test completed; and an incremental cost per new HIV diagnosis of $US9365 [ 27 ].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…The only comparative self-testing cost study is one which recently reported in the U.S. and has shown comparable values to those reported here [ 27 ]. The U.S. values were $US61 per self-test completed; and an incremental cost per new HIV diagnosis of $US9365 [ 27 ].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…The implementation of free distribution of HIVST may promote the increase of testing frequency among high-risk MSM [48]. Moreover, it has been considering as a cost-effective prevention technology [49,50].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The implementation of HIVST to free distribution and as a public health policy may promote the increase of testing frequency among high-risk MSM [36]. Moreover, it has been considering as a technology with good costeffectiveness [37,38].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%