Imperial College London
Portrait Picture

ProfessorTimothyHallett

Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health

Professor of Global Health
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

+44 (0)20 7594 1150timothy.hallett

 
 
//

Location

 

School of Public HealthWhite City Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Anderson:2017:10.1002/jia2.25020,
author = {Anderson, S and Ghys, PD and Ombam, R and Hallett, TB},
doi = {10.1002/jia2.25020},
journal = {Journal of the International AIDS Society},
title = {HIV Prevention Where it is Needed Most: Comparison of Strategies for the Geographical Allocation of Interventions},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jia2.25020},
volume = {20},
year = {2017}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - IntroductionA strategic approach to the application of HIV prevention interventions is a core component of the UNAIDS Fast Track strategy to end the HIV epidemic by 2030. Central to these plans is a focus on high-prevalence geographies, in a bid to target resources to those in greatest need and maximize the reduction in new infections. Whilst this idea of geographical prioritization has the potential to improve efficiency, it is unclear how it should be implemented in practice. There are a range of prevention interventions which can be applied differentially across risk groups and locations, making allocation decisions complex. Here, we use mathematical modelling to compare the impact (infections averted) of a number of different approaches to the implementation of geographical prioritization of prevention interventions, similar to those emerging in policy and practice, across a range of prevention budgets.MethodsWe use geographically specific mathematical models of the epidemic and response in 48 counties and major cities of Kenya to project the impact of the different geographical prioritization approaches. We compare the geographical allocation strategies with a nationally uniform approach under which the same interventions must be applied across all modelled locations.ResultsWe find that the most extreme geographical prioritization strategy, which focuses resources exclusively to high-prevalence locations, may substantially restrict impact (41% fewer infections averted) compared to a nationally uniform approach, as opportunities for highly effective interventions for high-risk populations in lower-prevalence areas are missed. Other geographical allocation approaches, which intensify efforts in higher-prevalence areas whilst maintaining a minimum package of cost-effective interventions everywhere, consistently improve impact at all budget levels. Such strategies balance the need for greater investment in locations with the largest epidemics whilst ensuring higher
AU  - Anderson,S
AU  - Ghys,PD
AU  - Ombam,R
AU  - Hallett,TB
DO  - 10.1002/jia2.25020
PY  - 2017///
SN  - 1758-2652
TI  - HIV Prevention Where it is Needed Most: Comparison of Strategies for the Geographical Allocation of Interventions
T2  - Journal of the International AIDS Society
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jia2.25020
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/51640
VL  - 20
ER  -
Download