IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ijhplm/v33y2018i1p31-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

HIV screening in pregnant women: A systematic review of cost‐effectiveness studies

Author

Listed:
  • Fabrizio Bert
  • Maria Rosaria Gualano
  • Paolo Biancone
  • Valerio Brescia
  • Elisa Camussi
  • Maria Martorana
  • Robin Thomas
  • Silvana Secinaro
  • Roberta Siliquini

Abstract

Introduction Vertical transmission represents the major route of HIV infection for children. However, the preventive interventions available are extremely effective. This review summarizes evidence regarding the cost‐effectiveness of mother‐to‐child‐transmission preventive screenings, to help policy makers in choosing the optimal antenatal screening strategy. Methods A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted, using 3 databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis Registry. All articles regarding HIV screening to avoid vertical transmission were included. Results The review included 21 papers. Seven studies assessed the cost‐effectiveness of universal antenatal screening during early gestation. Two papers considered the integration of HIV screening with other medical interventions. Eight works estimated the cost‐effectiveness of HIV screening in late pregnancy. Finally, 4 papers considered the combination of multiple strategies. The selected papers focused on both developed and developing countries, with a different HIV prevalence. The characteristics and methodology of the studies were heterogeneous. However, all studies agreed about the main findings, outlining the cost‐effectiveness of both universal antenatal screening and HIV rescreening in late pregnancy. Cost‐effectiveness improved when HIV burden increased. The major findings were proved to be robust across various scenarios when tested in sensitivity analysis. Conclusions The review confirmed the cost‐effectiveness not only of HIV universal antenatal screening but also of rescreening in late gestation in both developed and developing countries. Universal screening is cost‐effective even in case of extremely low HIV prevalence. Therefore, to maximize screening, coverage appears as a worldwide priority. In certain settings, a targeted screening towards high‐risk groups could be a valuable option.

Suggested Citation

  • Fabrizio Bert & Maria Rosaria Gualano & Paolo Biancone & Valerio Brescia & Elisa Camussi & Maria Martorana & Robin Thomas & Silvana Secinaro & Roberta Siliquini, 2018. "HIV screening in pregnant women: A systematic review of cost‐effectiveness studies," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 31-50, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:ijhplm:v:33:y:2018:i:1:p:31-50
    DOI: 10.1002/hpm.2418
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.2418
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hpm.2418?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yohannes Ejigu & Biniyam Tadesse, 2018. "HIV testing during pregnancy for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV in Ethiopia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-11, August.
    2. Hani Serag & Isabel Clark & Cherith Naig & David Lakey & Yordanos M. Tiruneh, 2022. "Financing Benefits and Barriers to Routine HIV Screening in Clinical Settings in the United States: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Valerio Brescia & Myriam Caratù & Giacomo Scaioli, 2021. "A Community-Based Social Marketing Strategy to Prevent HIV and Fight Stigma," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 14(10), pages 196-196, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ijhplm:v:33:y:2018:i:1:p:31-50. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0749-6753 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.