Limits...
S4HARA: System for HIV/AIDS resource allocation.

Lasry A, Carter MW, Zaric GS - Cost Eff Resour Alloc (2008)

Bottom Line: Without additional funding, an optimal allocation of the total budget suggests that the portion allotted to condom distribution be increased from 1% to 15% and the portion allotted to prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections be increased from 43% to 71%, while allocation to other interventions should decrease.NGOs and donors promoting antiretroviral programs at the clinic should be sensitized to the results of the model and urged to invest in wellness programs aimed at the prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections.S4HARA differentiates itself from other decision support tools by providing rational HIV/AIDS resource allocation capabilities as well as consideration of the realities facing authorities in their decision-making process.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, N6A 3K7, Canada.

ABSTRACT

Background: HIV/AIDS resource allocation decisions are influenced by political, social, ethical and other factors that are difficult to quantify. Consequently, quantitative models of HIV/AIDS resource allocation have had limited impact on actual spending decisions. We propose a decision-support System for HIV/AIDS Resource Allocation (S4HARA) that takes into consideration both principles of efficient resource allocation and the role of non-quantifiable influences on the decision-making process for resource allocation.

Methods: S4HARA is a four-step spreadsheet-based model. The first step serves to identify the factors currently influencing HIV/AIDS allocation decisions. The second step consists of prioritizing HIV/AIDS interventions. The third step involves allocating the budget to the HIV/AIDS interventions using a rational approach. Decision-makers can select from several rational models of resource allocation depending on availability of data and level of complexity. The last step combines the results of the first and third steps to highlight the influencing factors that act as barriers or facilitators to the results suggested by the rational resource allocation approach. Actionable recommendations are then made to improve the allocation. We illustrate S4HARA in the context of a primary healthcare clinic in South Africa.

Results: The clinic offers six types of HIV/AIDS interventions and spends US$750,000 annually on these programs. Current allocation decisions are influenced by donors, NGOs and the government as well as by ethical and religious factors. Without additional funding, an optimal allocation of the total budget suggests that the portion allotted to condom distribution be increased from 1% to 15% and the portion allotted to prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections be increased from 43% to 71%, while allocation to other interventions should decrease.

Conclusion: Condom uptake at the clinic should be increased by changing the condom distribution policy from a pull system to a push system. NGOs and donors promoting antiretroviral programs at the clinic should be sensitized to the results of the model and urged to invest in wellness programs aimed at the prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections. S4HARA differentiates itself from other decision support tools by providing rational HIV/AIDS resource allocation capabilities as well as consideration of the realities facing authorities in their decision-making process.

No MeSH data available.


Equity as the approach used in Step 3.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2386442&req=5

Figure 7: Equity as the approach used in Step 3.

Mentions: Figure 7 shows the allocation of resources when the equity approach is applied to the kwaDukuza PHC clinic. The background color of fields in the difference row is highlighted in green when a program's share of the budget should be increased to meet the equity allocation while it is highlighted in red when a program's share should decrease.


S4HARA: System for HIV/AIDS resource allocation.

Lasry A, Carter MW, Zaric GS - Cost Eff Resour Alloc (2008)

Equity as the approach used in Step 3.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2386442&req=5

Figure 7: Equity as the approach used in Step 3.
Mentions: Figure 7 shows the allocation of resources when the equity approach is applied to the kwaDukuza PHC clinic. The background color of fields in the difference row is highlighted in green when a program's share of the budget should be increased to meet the equity allocation while it is highlighted in red when a program's share should decrease.

Bottom Line: Without additional funding, an optimal allocation of the total budget suggests that the portion allotted to condom distribution be increased from 1% to 15% and the portion allotted to prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections be increased from 43% to 71%, while allocation to other interventions should decrease.NGOs and donors promoting antiretroviral programs at the clinic should be sensitized to the results of the model and urged to invest in wellness programs aimed at the prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections.S4HARA differentiates itself from other decision support tools by providing rational HIV/AIDS resource allocation capabilities as well as consideration of the realities facing authorities in their decision-making process.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, N6A 3K7, Canada.

ABSTRACT

Background: HIV/AIDS resource allocation decisions are influenced by political, social, ethical and other factors that are difficult to quantify. Consequently, quantitative models of HIV/AIDS resource allocation have had limited impact on actual spending decisions. We propose a decision-support System for HIV/AIDS Resource Allocation (S4HARA) that takes into consideration both principles of efficient resource allocation and the role of non-quantifiable influences on the decision-making process for resource allocation.

Methods: S4HARA is a four-step spreadsheet-based model. The first step serves to identify the factors currently influencing HIV/AIDS allocation decisions. The second step consists of prioritizing HIV/AIDS interventions. The third step involves allocating the budget to the HIV/AIDS interventions using a rational approach. Decision-makers can select from several rational models of resource allocation depending on availability of data and level of complexity. The last step combines the results of the first and third steps to highlight the influencing factors that act as barriers or facilitators to the results suggested by the rational resource allocation approach. Actionable recommendations are then made to improve the allocation. We illustrate S4HARA in the context of a primary healthcare clinic in South Africa.

Results: The clinic offers six types of HIV/AIDS interventions and spends US$750,000 annually on these programs. Current allocation decisions are influenced by donors, NGOs and the government as well as by ethical and religious factors. Without additional funding, an optimal allocation of the total budget suggests that the portion allotted to condom distribution be increased from 1% to 15% and the portion allotted to prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections be increased from 43% to 71%, while allocation to other interventions should decrease.

Conclusion: Condom uptake at the clinic should be increased by changing the condom distribution policy from a pull system to a push system. NGOs and donors promoting antiretroviral programs at the clinic should be sensitized to the results of the model and urged to invest in wellness programs aimed at the prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections. S4HARA differentiates itself from other decision support tools by providing rational HIV/AIDS resource allocation capabilities as well as consideration of the realities facing authorities in their decision-making process.

No MeSH data available.