Economic evaluation of an HIV prevention intervention for seropositive injection drug users.

Karunesh Tuli, Stephanie Sansom, David W. Purcell, Lisa R. Metsch, Carl A. Latkin, Marc Gourevitch, Cynthia A. Gómez

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of Intervention for HIV-Seropositive injection drug users--Research and Evaluation (INSPIRE), designed to reduce risky sexual and needle-sharing behaviors in research sites in four US cities (2001-2003). METHODS: We collected data on program and participant costs. We used a mathematical model to estimate the number of sex partners of injection drug users expected to become infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (with and without intervention), cost of treatment for sex partners who became infected, and the effect of infection on partners' quality-adjusted life expectancy. We determined the minimum effect that INSPIRE must have on condom use among participants for the intervention to be cost-saving (intervention cost less than savings from averted HIV infections) or cost-effective (net cost per quality-adjusted life year saved less than $50,000). RESULTS: The intervention cost was $870 per participant. It would be cost-saving if it led to 53 percent reduction in the proportion of participants who had any unprotected sex in 1 year and cost-effective with 17 percent reduction. If behavior change lasted 3 months, the cost-effectiveness threshold was 66 percent; if 3 years, the threshold was 6 percent. CONCLUSIONS: Although cost-saving thresholds may not be achievable by the intervention, we anticipate that cost-effectiveness thresholds will be attained.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)508-515
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of public health management and practice : JPHMP.
Volume11
Issue number6
StatePublished - Nov 2005

Fingerprint

Drug Users
Cost-Benefit Analysis
HIV
Costs and Cost Analysis
Injections
Drug Evaluation
Research
Needle Sharing
Unsafe Sex
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Cost Savings
Condoms
Virus Diseases
Life Expectancy
Health Care Costs
Theoretical Models
Quality of Life
Infection

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Tuli, K., Sansom, S., Purcell, D. W., Metsch, L. R., Latkin, C. A., Gourevitch, M., & Gómez, C. A. (2005). Economic evaluation of an HIV prevention intervention for seropositive injection drug users. Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP., 11(6), 508-515.

Economic evaluation of an HIV prevention intervention for seropositive injection drug users. / Tuli, Karunesh; Sansom, Stephanie; Purcell, David W.; Metsch, Lisa R.; Latkin, Carl A.; Gourevitch, Marc; Gómez, Cynthia A.

In: Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP., Vol. 11, No. 6, 11.2005, p. 508-515.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Tuli, Karunesh ; Sansom, Stephanie ; Purcell, David W. ; Metsch, Lisa R. ; Latkin, Carl A. ; Gourevitch, Marc ; Gómez, Cynthia A. / Economic evaluation of an HIV prevention intervention for seropositive injection drug users. In: Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP. 2005 ; Vol. 11, No. 6. pp. 508-515.
@article{7979d464ea4e44beb06273722f5f2d21,
title = "Economic evaluation of an HIV prevention intervention for seropositive injection drug users.",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of Intervention for HIV-Seropositive injection drug users--Research and Evaluation (INSPIRE), designed to reduce risky sexual and needle-sharing behaviors in research sites in four US cities (2001-2003). METHODS: We collected data on program and participant costs. We used a mathematical model to estimate the number of sex partners of injection drug users expected to become infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (with and without intervention), cost of treatment for sex partners who became infected, and the effect of infection on partners' quality-adjusted life expectancy. We determined the minimum effect that INSPIRE must have on condom use among participants for the intervention to be cost-saving (intervention cost less than savings from averted HIV infections) or cost-effective (net cost per quality-adjusted life year saved less than $50,000). RESULTS: The intervention cost was $870 per participant. It would be cost-saving if it led to 53 percent reduction in the proportion of participants who had any unprotected sex in 1 year and cost-effective with 17 percent reduction. If behavior change lasted 3 months, the cost-effectiveness threshold was 66 percent; if 3 years, the threshold was 6 percent. CONCLUSIONS: Although cost-saving thresholds may not be achievable by the intervention, we anticipate that cost-effectiveness thresholds will be attained.",
author = "Karunesh Tuli and Stephanie Sansom and Purcell, {David W.} and Metsch, {Lisa R.} and Latkin, {Carl A.} and Marc Gourevitch and G{\'o}mez, {Cynthia A.}",
year = "2005",
month = "11",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
pages = "508--515",
journal = "Journal of Public Health Management and Practice",
issn = "1078-4659",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Economic evaluation of an HIV prevention intervention for seropositive injection drug users.

AU - Tuli, Karunesh

AU - Sansom, Stephanie

AU - Purcell, David W.

AU - Metsch, Lisa R.

AU - Latkin, Carl A.

AU - Gourevitch, Marc

AU - Gómez, Cynthia A.

PY - 2005/11

Y1 - 2005/11

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of Intervention for HIV-Seropositive injection drug users--Research and Evaluation (INSPIRE), designed to reduce risky sexual and needle-sharing behaviors in research sites in four US cities (2001-2003). METHODS: We collected data on program and participant costs. We used a mathematical model to estimate the number of sex partners of injection drug users expected to become infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (with and without intervention), cost of treatment for sex partners who became infected, and the effect of infection on partners' quality-adjusted life expectancy. We determined the minimum effect that INSPIRE must have on condom use among participants for the intervention to be cost-saving (intervention cost less than savings from averted HIV infections) or cost-effective (net cost per quality-adjusted life year saved less than $50,000). RESULTS: The intervention cost was $870 per participant. It would be cost-saving if it led to 53 percent reduction in the proportion of participants who had any unprotected sex in 1 year and cost-effective with 17 percent reduction. If behavior change lasted 3 months, the cost-effectiveness threshold was 66 percent; if 3 years, the threshold was 6 percent. CONCLUSIONS: Although cost-saving thresholds may not be achievable by the intervention, we anticipate that cost-effectiveness thresholds will be attained.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of Intervention for HIV-Seropositive injection drug users--Research and Evaluation (INSPIRE), designed to reduce risky sexual and needle-sharing behaviors in research sites in four US cities (2001-2003). METHODS: We collected data on program and participant costs. We used a mathematical model to estimate the number of sex partners of injection drug users expected to become infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (with and without intervention), cost of treatment for sex partners who became infected, and the effect of infection on partners' quality-adjusted life expectancy. We determined the minimum effect that INSPIRE must have on condom use among participants for the intervention to be cost-saving (intervention cost less than savings from averted HIV infections) or cost-effective (net cost per quality-adjusted life year saved less than $50,000). RESULTS: The intervention cost was $870 per participant. It would be cost-saving if it led to 53 percent reduction in the proportion of participants who had any unprotected sex in 1 year and cost-effective with 17 percent reduction. If behavior change lasted 3 months, the cost-effectiveness threshold was 66 percent; if 3 years, the threshold was 6 percent. CONCLUSIONS: Although cost-saving thresholds may not be achievable by the intervention, we anticipate that cost-effectiveness thresholds will be attained.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33644923267&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33644923267&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 508

EP - 515

JO - Journal of Public Health Management and Practice

JF - Journal of Public Health Management and Practice

SN - 1078-4659

IS - 6

ER -