Peter Ehrenkranz1, Anna Grimsrud2, Miriam Rabkin3,4. 1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington, USA. 2. International AIDS Society, Cape Town, South Africa. 3. ICAP at Columbia University. 4. Departments of Medicine & Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York City, New York, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Differentiated service delivery (DSD) has emerged as an approach for HIV programs seeking to better serve the needs of people living with HIV, reduce unnecessary burdens on the health system, and improve client outcomes. We reviewed recent evidence that addresses the challenge of DSD scale-up. RECENT FINDINGS: Most current evidence focuses on treatment of clinically stable adult clients in high HIV prevalence settings. Nonetheless, a growing body of research is emerging on how the concept of differentiation is being applied to HIV testing, linkage, and initiation; service delivery to specific demographic groups including key populations - MSM, people who inject drugs, people in prisons, sex workers, and transgender people; service delivery to adolescents and pregnant women; and impact on related medical conditions like advanced HIV. There is also an increasing emphasis on measuring client experience. Key barriers to scale-up include the capacity of monitoring and evaluation systems, access to viral load monitoring and funding for community-led demand generation efforts. Another barrier is the lack of sufficient data to evaluate the various manifestations of the DSD model. SUMMARY: Emerging evidence is providing welcome nuance to the discourse on the concept of DSD for HIV. The challenge will be taking evolving DSD concepts from pilot to scale. Countries must review their particular context, define the expected needs of their clients in different settings, introduce appropriate models - and be willing to adjust programming based on quantitative and qualitative outcomes.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Differentiated service delivery (DSD) has emerged as an approach for HIV programs seeking to better serve the needs of people living with HIV, reduce unnecessary burdens on the health system, and improve client outcomes. We reviewed recent evidence that addresses the challenge of DSD scale-up. RECENT FINDINGS: Most current evidence focuses on treatment of clinically stable adult clients in high HIV prevalence settings. Nonetheless, a growing body of research is emerging on how the concept of differentiation is being applied to HIV testing, linkage, and initiation; service delivery to specific demographic groups including key populations - MSM, people who inject drugs, people in prisons, sex workers, and transgender people; service delivery to adolescents and pregnant women; and impact on related medical conditions like advanced HIV. There is also an increasing emphasis on measuring client experience. Key barriers to scale-up include the capacity of monitoring and evaluation systems, access to viral load monitoring and funding for community-led demand generation efforts. Another barrier is the lack of sufficient data to evaluate the various manifestations of the DSD model. SUMMARY: Emerging evidence is providing welcome nuance to the discourse on the concept of DSD for HIV. The challenge will be taking evolving DSD concepts from pilot to scale. Countries must review their particular context, define the expected needs of their clients in different settings, introduce appropriate models - and be willing to adjust programming based on quantitative and qualitative outcomes.
Authors: Ingrid Eshun-Wilson; Mpande Mukumbwa-Mwenechanya; Hae-Young Kim; Arianna Zannolini; Chanda P Mwamba; David Dowdy; Estella Kalunkumya; Mwansa Lumpa; Laura K Beres; Monika Roy; Anjali Sharma; Steph M Topp; Dave V Glidden; Nancy Padian; Peter Ehrenkranz; Izukanji Sikazwe; Charles B Holmes; Carolyn Bolton-Moore; Elvin H Geng Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Miriam Rabkin; Michael Strauss; Joanne E Mantell; Munyaradzi Mapingure; Tsitsi B Masvawure; Matthew R Lamb; Jennifer M Zech; Godfrey Musuka; Innocent Chingombe; Martin Msukwa; Rodrigo Boccanera; Clorata Gwanzura; Gavin George; Tsitsi Apollo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-01-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sharon Tsui; Caitlin E Kennedy; Lawrence H Moulton; Larry W Chang; Jason E Farley; Kwasi Torpey; Eric van Praag; Olivier Koole; Nathan Ford; Fred Wabwire-Mangen; Julie A Denison Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2021-08-08 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: Jienchi Dorward; Lindani Msimango; Andrew Gibbs; Hlengiwe Shozi; Sarah Tonkin-Crine; Gail Hayward; Christopher C Butler; Hope Ngobese; Paul K Drain; Nigel Garrett Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Anna Grimsrud; Lynne Wilkinson; Ingrid Eshun-Wilson; Charles Holmes; Izukanji Sikazwe; Ingrid T Katz Journal: Curr HIV/AIDS Rep Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 5.071
Authors: Ruanne V Barnabas; Adam A Szpiro; Heidi van Rooyen; Stephen Asiimwe; Deenan Pillay; Norma C Ware; Torin T Schaafsma; Meighan L Krows; Alastair van Heerden; Philip Joseph; Maryam Shahmanesh; Monique A Wyatt; Kombi Sausi; Bosco Turyamureeba; Nsika Sithole; Susan Morrison; Adrienne E Shapiro; D Allen Roberts; Katherine K Thomas; Olivier Koole; Anna Bershteyn; Peter Ehrenkranz; Jared M Baeten; Connie Celum Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 26.763