IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0360356.html

Cost comparison of the ShangRing device versus Mogen clamp for early infant male circumcision in Sub-Saharan Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Nahid Punjani
  • Tenny R Zhang
  • Spyridon P Basourakos
  • Mark A Barone
  • Alice Christensen
  • Godfrey Kigozi
  • Marc Goldstein
  • Philip S Li
  • Alvin I Mushlin
  • John Stover
  • Richard K Lee

Abstract

Introduction: The World Health Organization (WHO) endorses male circumcision as an effective human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention intervention in settings where the expected impact is greatest, including Sub-Saharan Africa. Data on cost implications of early infant male circumcision (EIMC) are limited. The ShangRing (SR) is a WHO pre-qualified device for circumcision. We sought to perform a comprehensive cost assessment alongside a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the SR versus the standard of care Mogen clamp (MoC) for EIMC to enable future scale-up towards a cost-effective HIV prevention strategy. Methods: We collected resource utilization and economic data as part of an RCT of infants aged 0–60 days old undergoing EIMC in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. Cost data for both the SR and MoC included baseline facility costs, direct costs, and indirect costs. The Decision Makers Program Planning Tool v1.0 was used to perform a direct cost comparison of these two devices. The Goals model was used to compare the costs of EIMC in 2023 using the present value of money to circumcise an adolescent male 15 years from now. Results: A total of 1,378 infant males underwent circumcision, 689 via SR and 689 via MoC. The overall cost of a single EIMC in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda were 61.30 United States Dollars ($), $47.14, and $64.59 respectively for the SR, and $56.38, $50.43, and $58.57 respectively for the MoC. In Kenya, EIMC would be less expensive based on nominal present costs in 2023 compared to waiting for adolescent circumcision at age 15 years in 2038. This finding is reversed in Tanzania and Uganda. Conclusions: The overall cost of EIMC via SR versus MoC is comparable in an RCT. With scale-up utilizing lower level personnel, the cost of SR may be further reduced. The SR is an attractive alternative for future EIMC initiatives in Sub-Saharan Africa to further reduce HIV burden.

Suggested Citation

  • Nahid Punjani & Tenny R Zhang & Spyridon P Basourakos & Mark A Barone & Alice Christensen & Godfrey Kigozi & Marc Goldstein & Philip S Li & Alvin I Mushlin & John Stover & Richard K Lee, 2026. "Cost comparison of the ShangRing device versus Mogen clamp for early infant male circumcision in Sub-Saharan Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(10), pages 1-12, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0360356
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0360356
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0360356
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0360356&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0360356?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
    ---><---

    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:plo:pone00:0360356. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.