Abstract
Abstract
Background
National or regional population-based HIV prevalence surveys have small sample sizes at district or sub-district levels; this leads to wide confidence intervals when estimating HIV prevalence at district level for programme monitoring and decision making. Health facility programme data, collected during service delivery is widely available, but since people self-select for HIV testing, HIV prevalence estimates based on it, is subject to selection bias. We present a statistical annealing technique, Hybrid Prevalence Estimation (HPE), that combines a small population-based survey sample with a facility-based sample to generate district level HIV prevalence estimates with associated confidence intervals.
Methods
We apply the HPE methodology to combine the 2011 Uganda AIDS indicator survey with the 2011 health facility HIV testing data to obtain HIV prevalence estimates for districts in Uganda. Multilevel logistic regression was used to obtain the propensity of testing for HIV in a health facility, and the propensity to test was used to combine the population survey and health facility HIV testing data to obtain the HPEs. We assessed comparability of the HPEs and survey-based estimates using Bland Altman analysis.
Results
The estimates ranged from 0.012 to 0.178 and had narrower confidence intervals compared to survey-based estimates. The average difference between HPEs and population survey estimates was 0.00 (95% CI: − 0.04, 0.04). The HPE standard errors were 28.9% (95% CI: 23.4–34.4) reduced, compared to survey-based standard errors. Overall reduction in HPE standard errors compared survey-based standard errors ranged from 5.4 to 95%.
Conclusions
Facility data can be combined with population survey data to obtain more accurate HIV prevalence estimates for geographical areas with small population survey sample sizes. We recommend use of the methodology by district level managers to obtain more accurate HIV prevalence estimates to guide decision making without incurring additional data collection costs.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Reference41 articles.
1. UNAIDS/WHO Working Group on Global HIV/AIDS and STI Surveillance. Monitoring HIV impact using Population-Based Surveys. 2015.
2. McGovern ME, Marra G, Radice R, Canning D, Newell M-L, Barnighausen T. Adjusting HIV prevalence estimates for non-participation: an application to demographic surveillance. J Int AIDS Soc. 2015;18(1):19954.
3. Marston M, Harriss K, Slaymaker E. Non-response bias in estimates of HIV prevalence due to the mobility of absentees in national population-based surveys: a study of nine national surveys. Sex Transm Infect. 2008;84(Suppl 1):71–8.
4. Vinod M, Hong R, Khan S, Gu Y. Evaluating HIV Estimates from National Population-Based Surveys for Bias resulting from non-Reponse. DHS analytical studies no. 12. Calverton, Maryland: Macro International Inc.; 2008.
5. Chan M, Kazatchkine M, Lob-levyt J, Obaid T, Schweizer J, Veneman A, et al. Meeting the demand for results and accountability : a call for action on health data from eight Global Health agencies. PLoS Med. 2010;7(1):5–8.