Optimal Investment in a Portfolio of HIV Prevention Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In this article, the authors determine the optimal allocation of HIV prevention funds and investigate the impact of different allocation methods on health outcomes. METHODS: The authors present a resource allocation model that can be used to determine the allocation of HIV prevention funds that maximizes quality-adjusted life years (or life years) gained or HIV infections averted in a population over a specified time horizon. They apply the model to determine the allocation of a limited budget among 3 types of HIV prevention programs in a population of injection drug users and nonusers: needle exchange programs, methadone maintenance treatment, and condom availability programs. For each prevention program, the authors estimate a production function that relates the amount invested to the associated change in risky behavior. RESULTS: The authors determine the optimal allocation of funds for both objective functions for a high-prevalence population and a low-prevalence population. They also consider the allocation of funds under several common rules of thumb that are used to allocate HIV prevention resources. It is shown that simpler allocation methods (e.g., allocation based on HIV incidence or notions of equity among population groups) may lead to alloctions that do not yield the maximum health benefit. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal allocation of HIV prevention funds in a population depends on HIV prevalence and incidence, the objective function, the production functions for the prevention programs, and other factors. Consideration of cost, equity, and social and political norms may be important when allocating HIV prevention funds. The model presented in this article can help decision makers determine the health consequences of different allocations of funds.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".