Cost-effectiveness of methadone maintenance treatment for HIV-positive drug users in Vietnam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) is efficacious in reducing drug use that may improve HIV/AIDS care and treatment outcomes. This study evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness of MMT for HIV-positive drug users from the perspective of health service providers. A sample of 370 HIV-positive drug users (age: mean ± SD: 29.5 ± 5.9 years; 95.7% male) taking MMT in multi-sites was assessed at baseline, three, six and nine months. Costs of MMT services were analyzed and converted to the year 2009. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were modeled from changes in health-related quality of life of patients using the modified World Health Organization Quality of Life - Brief Version (WHOQOL-BREF). Inverse probability-of-treatment weights, constructed using propensity score of non-responses, were applied to adjust for potential confounding. Over nine months, MMT substantially improved QALYs of HIV/AIDS patients (0.076 QALY [0.066-0.084]). The increments in QALY were large and stabilized in those patients taking antiretroviral treatment and abstinent to drug use. For one QALY gained, the MMT program would cost US$3745.3, approximately 3.2 times Vietnam GDP per capita in 2009. The cost-effectiveness of MMT intervention was robust against HIV advanced status or co-morbidity, e.g., TB treatment, but it might not be cost-effective for those patients who continued to use drug. Findings of this study indicate that providing MMT for HIV-positive drug users is a cost-effective intervention in Vietnam. Integrating MMT to HIV/AIDS care and treatment services would be beneficial in injection-driven HIV epidemics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".