Optimizing viral load testing access for the last mile: Geospatial cost model for point of care instrument placement.

Clicks: 252
ID: 17499
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #1,265 of 2,056 articles by views in PloS one

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 2,056 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Viral load (VL) monitoring programs have been scaled up rapidly, but are now facing the challenge of providing access to the most remote facilities (the "last mile"). For the hardest-to-reach facilities in Zambia, we compared the cost of placing point of care (POC) viral load instruments at or near facilities to the cost of an expanded sample transportation network (STN) to deliver samples to centralized laboratories.We extended a previously described geospatial model for Zambia that first optimized a STN for centralized laboratories for 90% of estimated viral load volumes. Amongst the remaining 10% of volumes, facilities were identified as candidates for POC placement, and then instrument placement was optimized such that access and instrument utilization is maximized. We evaluated the full cost per test under three scenarios: 1) POC placement at all facilities identified for POC; 2)an optimized combination of both on-site POC placement and placement at facilities acting as POC hubs; and 3) integration into the centralized STN to allow use of centralized laboratories.For the hardest-to-reach facilities, optimal POC placement covered a quarter of HIV-treating facilities. Scenario 2 resulted in a cost per test of $39.58, 6% less than the cost per test of scenario 1, $41.81. This is due to increased POC instrument utilization in scenario 2 where facilities can act as POC hubs. Scenario 3 was the most costly at $53.40 per test, due to high transport costs under the centralized model ($36 per test compared to $12 per test in scenario 2).POC VL testing may reduce the costs of expanding access to the hardest-to-reach populations, despite the cost of equipment and low patient volumes. An optimal combination of both on-site placement and the use of POC hubs can reduce the cost per test by 6-35% by reducing transport costs and increasing instrument utilization.
Reference Key
girdwood2019optimizingplos Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Girdwood, Sarah J;Nichols, Brooke E;Moyo, Crispin;Crompton, Thomas;Chimhamhiwa, Dorman;Rosen, Sydney;
Journal PloS one
Year 2019
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0221586
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.