Costing of Antiretroviral Treatment in Mbagathi District Hospital, Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kenya has made positive progress towards achieving Millennium Development Goals and Vision 2030; however, HIV and AIDS remains a major challenge, causing premature mortality and morbidity and unless its impacts are controlled the country may not achieve its development goals. Antiretroviral therapy is one of the response mechanisms that are being implemented globally to mitigate the impact of HIV. The objectives of this study was to estimate the unit costs of labour, laboratory and imaging services, average cost per inpatient day and the average cost of outpatient visit per quarter in Mbagathi District Hospital. The cost and health service utilization data was collected retrospectively for a period of 24 months from the electronic medical records and patient charts of 351 HIV-positive adults who were enrolled on ART treatment in Mbagathi. Using micro-costing and gross-costing methods, we estimated the economic cost of the comprehensive HIV treatment. The average cost of outpatient visit per quarter was estimated to be Ksh9,044 (USD120.83)during the three months of treatment debut. This decreased over the two years of follow-up to Ksh5,818 (USD77.73) while the average cost per outpatient visit stood at Ksh2,001 (USD26.73). The average outpatient cost per annum was Ksh26,040 (USD347.90)and Ksh20,506 (USD273.96) in the first and the second year of treatment, respectively. The average cost of treatment per inpatient day was Ksh1,691 (USD22.59). The average labour cost per outpatient visit was Ksh465 (USD6.21) while that of inpatient per day was Ksh575 (USD7.68). Generally, ART accounted for the highest proportion of costs followed by the labour and laboratory test. The study provides new and relevant information in terms of the unit costs of inpatient and outpatient care, labour, laboratory and imaging.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".