• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of public health management and practice: JPHMP >Shrestha, R.K., Sansom, S.L., Farnham, P.G.Comparison of methods for estimating the cost of human immunodeficiency virus-testing interventions
【24h】

Shrestha, R.K., Sansom, S.L., Farnham, P.G.Comparison of methods for estimating the cost of human immunodeficiency virus-testing interventions

机译：Shrestha，R.K.，Sansom，S.L.，Farnham，P.G.比较评估人类免疫缺陷病毒测试干预措施成本的方法

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Context: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, spends approximately 50% of its $325 million annual human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention funds for HIV-testing services. An accurate estimate of the costs of HIV testing in various settings is essential for efficient allocation of HIV prevention resources. Objectives: To assess the costs of HIV-testing interventions using different costing methods. Design, Settings, and Participants: We used the microcosting-direct measurement method to assess the costs of HIV-testing interventions in nonclinical settings, and we compared these results with those from 3 other costing methods: microcosting-staff allocation, where the labor cost was derived from the proportion of each staff persons time allocated to HIV testing interventions; gross costing, where the New York State Medicaid payment for HIV testing was used to estimate program costs, and program budget, where the program cost was assumed to be the total funding provided by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Main Outcome Measures: Total program cost, cost per person tested, and cost per person notified of new HIV diagnosis. Results: The median costs per person notified of a new HIV diagnosis were $12 475, $15 018, $2697, and $20 144 based on microcosting-direct measurement, microcosting-staff allocation, gross costing, and program budget methods, respectively. Compared with the microcosting-direct measurement method, the cost was 78% lower with gross costing, and 20% and 61% higher using the microcosting-staff allocation and program budget methods, respectively. Conclusions: Our analysis showed that HIV-testing program cost estimates vary widely by costing methods. However, the choice of a particular costing method may depend on the research question being addressed. Although program budget and gross-costing methods may be attractive because of their simplicity, only the microcosting-direct measurement method can identify important determinants of the program costs and provide guidance to improve efficiency.
机译：背景：疾病预防控制中心（CDC）的艾滋病毒/艾滋病预防司将其每年3.25亿美元的人类免疫缺陷病毒（HIV）预防资金中的大约50％用于艾滋病毒检测服务。准确估算各种环境中的HIV检测成本对于有效分配HIV预防资源至关重要。目标：使用不同的成本核算方法评估艾滋病毒检测干预措施的成本。设计，环境和参与者：我们使用直接微成本法评估方法评估了非临床环境中HIV检测干预措施的成本，并将这些结果与其他3种成本核算方法的结果进行了比较：微成本法人员分配，即人工成本来自分配给艾滋病毒检测干预措施的每个工作人员时间的比例;总成本，其中纽约州用于艾滋病毒检测的医疗补助用于估计计划成本，以及计划预算，其中计划成本假定为疾病控制与预防中心提供的总资金。主要结果指标：总计划成本，每人接受测试的成本以及每人获得新的HIV诊断的费用。结果：基于微观成本直接测量，微观成本人员分配，总成本和计划预算方法，每位被通知患有新的HIV诊断的人的平均成本分别为12 475美元，15018美元，2697美元和20144美元。与采用微额成本法直接计量的方法相比，采用毛额成本法时的成本降低了78％，而采用微额成本人员分配和计划预算法的成本分别为20％和61％。结论：我们的分析表明，艾滋病毒检测项目的成本估算因成本估算方法而异。但是，特定成本核算方法的选择可能取决于要解决的研究问题。尽管计划预算和总成本估算方法由于其简单性而具有吸引力，但只有直接采用微观成本估算的方法才能确定计划成本的重要决定因素，并为提高效率提供指导。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号