IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v18y2020i3d10.1007_s40258-019-00549-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Promoting HIV Testing by Men: A Discrete Choice Experiment to Elicit Preferences and Predict Uptake of Community-based Testing in Uganda

Author

Listed:
  • Elisabeth M. Schaffer

    (University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus
    University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

  • Juan Marcos Gonzalez

    (Duke Clinical Research Institute)

  • Stephanie B. Wheeler

    (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

  • Dalsone Kwarisiima

    (Makerere University Joint AIDS Program)

  • Gabriel Chamie

    (University of California San Francisco)

  • Harsha Thirumurthy

    (University of Pennsylvania)

Abstract

Background and Objectives HIV testing is essential to access HIV treatment and care and plays a critical role in preventing transmission. Despite this, testing coverage is low among men in sub-Saharan Africa. Community-based testing has demonstrated potential to expand male testing coverage, yet scant evidence reveals how community-based services can be designed to optimize testing uptake. We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to elicit preferences and predict uptake of community-based testing by men in Uganda. Methods Hypothetical choices between alternative community-based testing services and the option to opt-out of testing were presented to a random, population-based sample of 203 adult male residents. The testing alternatives varied by service delivery model (community health campaign, counselor-administered home-based testing, distribution of HIV self-test kits at local pharmacies), availability of multi-disease testing, access to antiretroviral therapy (ART), and provision of a US$0.85 incentive. We estimated preferences using a random parameters logit model and explored whether preferences varied by participant characteristics through subgroup analyses. We simulated uptake when a single and when two community-based testing services are made available, using reference values of observed uptake to calibrate predictions. Results The share of the adult male population predicted to test for HIV ranged from 0.15 to 0.91 when a single community-based testing service is made available and from 0.50 to 0.96 when two community-based services are provided concurrently. ART access was the strongest driver of choices (relative importance [RI] = 3.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.74–4.29), followed by the service delivery model (RI = 1.27, 95% CI 0.72–1.82) and availability of multi-disease testing (RI = 1.27, 95% CI 0.09–2.45). A US$0.85 incentive had the least yet still significant influence on choices (RI = 0.77, 95% CI 0.06–1.49). Men who perceived their risk of having HIV to be relatively elevated had higher predicted uptake of HIV self-test kits at local pharmacies, as did young adult men compared to men aged ≥ 30 years. Men who earned ≤ the daily median income had higher predicted uptake of all community-based testing services versus men who earned above the daily median income. Conclusion Substantial opportunity exists to optimize the delivery of HIV testing to expand uptake by men; using an innovative DCE, we deliver timely, actionable guidance for promoting community-based testing by men in Uganda. We advance the stated preference literature methodologically by describing how we constructed and evaluated a pragmatic experimental design, used interaction terms to conduct subgroup analyses, and harnessed participant-specific preference estimates to predict and calibrate testing uptake.

Suggested Citation

  • Elisabeth M. Schaffer & Juan Marcos Gonzalez & Stephanie B. Wheeler & Dalsone Kwarisiima & Gabriel Chamie & Harsha Thirumurthy, 2020. "Promoting HIV Testing by Men: A Discrete Choice Experiment to Elicit Preferences and Predict Uptake of Community-based Testing in Uganda," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 413-432, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:18:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-019-00549-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-019-00549-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-019-00549-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-019-00549-5?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083, October.
    2. Bhat, Chandra R., 1998. "Accommodating flexible substitution patterns in multi-dimensional choice modeling: formulation and application to travel mode and departure time choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 455-466, September.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, June.
    4. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    5. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    6. Jan Ostermann & Derek Brown & Axel Mühlbacher & Bernard Njau & Nathan Thielman, 2015. "Would you test for 5000 Shillings? HIV risk and willingness to accept HIV testing in Tanzania," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, December.
    7. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, Enero-Abr.
    8. Jane Hall & Patricia Kenny & Madeleine King & Jordan Louviere & Rosalie Viney & Angela Yeoh, 2002. "Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 457-465, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 1st June 2020
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2020-06-01 11:00:00

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. van de Pol, Jeroen M. & Heringa, Mette & Koster, Ellen S. & Bouvy, Marcel L., 2021. "Preferences of patients regarding community pharmacy services: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(11), pages 1415-1420.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    2. Vorlaufer, Tobias & Falk, Thomas & Dufhues, Thomas & Kirk, Michael, 2017. "Payments for ecosystem services and agricultural intensification: Evidence from a choice experiment on deforestation in Zambia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 95-105.
    3. Kjaer, Trine & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, 2008. "Preference heterogeneity and choice of cardiac rehabilitation program: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 124-132, January.
    4. Campbell, Danny, 2007. "Combining mixed logit models and random effects models to identify the determinants of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7975, Agricultural Economics Society.
    5. Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & Badura, Tomas & Vačkářová, Davina, 2020. "Public preferences for post 2020 agri-environmental policy in the Czech Republic: A choice experiment approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    6. Wongprawmas, Rungsaran & Canavari, Maurizio, 2017. "Consumers’ willingness-to-pay for food safety labels in an emerging market: The case of fresh produce in Thailand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 25-34.
    7. Kota Mameno & Takahiro Kubo & Hiroyuki Oguma & Yukihiro Amagai & Yasushi Shoji, 2022. "Decline in the alpine landscape aesthetic value in a national park under climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-18, February.
    8. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole J. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-17, December.
    9. Hole, Arne Risa, 2008. "Modelling heterogeneity in patients' preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 1078-1094, July.
    10. Krah, Kwabena & Michelson, Hope & Perge, Emilie & Jindal, Rohit, 2019. "Constraints to adopting soil fertility management practices in Malawi: A choice experiment approach," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Ioanna Grammatikopoulou & Janne Artell & Turo Hjerppe & Eija Pouta, 2020. "A Mire of Discount Rates: Delaying Conservation Payment Schedules in a Choice Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(3), pages 615-639, November.
    12. Frick, Bernd & Barros, Carlos Pestana & Prinz, Joachim, 2010. "Analysing head coach dismissals in the German "Bundesliga" with a mixed logit approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 151-159, January.
    13. Domanski, Adam, 2009. "Estimating Mixed Logit Recreation Demand Models With Large Choice Sets," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49413, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Ju-Hee Kim & Younggew Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2021. "Using a choice experiment to explore the public willingness to pay for the impacts of improving energy efficiency of an apartment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(5), pages 1775-1793, October.
    15. Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Colombo, Sergio, 2010. "Testing different types of benefit transfer in valuation of ecosystem services: New Zealand winegrowing case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1010-1022, March.
    16. Stephane Hess & John W. Polak, 2004. "An analysis of parking behaviour using discrete choice models calibrated on SP datasets," ERSA conference papers ersa04p60, European Regional Science Association.
    17. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    18. Ortega, David L. & Waldman, Kurt B. & Richardson, Robert B. & Clay, Daniel C. & Snapp, Sieglinde, 2016. "Sustainable Intensification and Farmer Preferences for Crop System Attributes: Evidence from Malawi’s Central and Southern Regions," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 139-151.
    19. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    20. Martine AUDIBERT & Yong HE & Jacky MATHONNAT, 2017. "What does demand heterogeneity tell us about health care provider choice in rural China?," Working Papers P193, FERDI.

    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:spr:aphecp:v:18:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-019-00549-5. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.