BACKGROUND: Home-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) and ART through mobile clinics can potentially increase access to ART for large numbers of people, including hard-to-reach populations. We reviewed literature on the effectiveness and cost implications of the home-based ART and mobile clinic ART models. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge and Current Controlled Trials Register for articles published up to March 2012. We included non-randomised and randomised controlled clinical trials that recruited HIV/AIDS positive adults with or without prior exposure to ART. RESULTS: Six studies were included in the review, with only four effectiveness studies (all evaluating home-based ART and none for mobile clinic ART) and four studies reporting on the cost implications. The evidence suggests home-based ART is as effective as health facility-based ART, including on clinical outcomes, viral load and CD4+ count. However, three of these studies were very small. Studies suggest health facility-based ART is the most cost-effective, followed by mobile-clinic ART, with home-based ART being the least cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the effectiveness and cost implications of mobile clinic and home-based ART is currently limited. Although the few available studies suggest home-based ART can potentially be as effective as health facility-based ART, there is need for more research before robust conclusions can be made. Results from the few available studies also suggest that health facility-based ART is the most cost-effective. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
|International Journal of Health Planning and Management
|Published - 22 Apr 2013