The case for investing in the male condom

• Published in: PloS one 2017-05, Vol.12 (5), p.e0177108-e0177108
• Main Authors: Stover, John, Rosen, James E, Carvalho, Maria Nadia, Korenromp, Eline L, Friedman, Howard S, Cogan, Matthew, Deperthes, Bidia
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acquired immune deficiency syndrome; Adolescent; Adult; Age; AIDS; Analysis; Biology and Life Sciences; Chlamydia; Concurrency; Condoms; Condoms - economics; Contraception; Cost analysis; Cost effectiveness; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Countdown; Data processing; Disease transmission; Division; Elk; Epidemics; Estimates; Family planning; Family Planning Services - economics; Female; Fertility; Format; Global Health; Health aspects; Health promotion; Health risks; Herpes viruses; HIV; HIV Infections - prevention & control; Human immunodeficiency virus; Humans; Hygiene; Indicators; Intervention; Investment; Life span; Male; Medicine and health sciences; Mens health; Middle Aged; Nations; People and Places; Polls & surveys; Population; Populations; Pregnancy; Pregnancy, Unplanned; Prevention; Prostitution; Public health; Risk; Risk groups; Scaling; Sex; Sex industry; Sexually transmitted disease prevention; Sexually transmitted diseases; Sexually Transmitted Diseases - prevention & control; Social Sciences; STD; Trends; Viruses; Womens health; Workers; World population; Young Adult
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177108

When used correctly and consistently, the male condom offers triple protection from unintended pregnancy and the transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). However, with health funding levels stagnant or falling, it is important to understand the cost and health impact associated with prevention technologies. This study is one of the first to attempt to quantify the cost and combined health impact of condom use, as a means to prevent unwanted pregnancy and to prevent transmission of STIs including HIV. This paper describes the analysis to make the case for investment in the male condom, including the cost, impact and cost-effectiveness by three scenarios (low in which 2015 condom use levels are maintained; medium in which condom use trends are used to predict condom use from 2016-2030; and high in which condom use is scaled up, as part of a package of contraceptives, to meet all unmet need for family planning by 2030 and to 90% for HIV and STI prevention by 2016) for 81 countries from 2015-2030. An annual gap between current and desired use of 10.9 billion condoms was identified (4.6 billion for family planning and 6.3 billion for HIV and STIs). Under a high scenario that completely reduces that gap between current and desired use of 10.9 billion condoms, we found that by 2030 countries could avert 240 million DALYs. The additional cost in the 81 countries through 2030 under the medium scenario is $1.9 billion, and $27.5 billion under the high scenario. Through 2030, the cost-effectiveness ratios are $304 per DALY averted for the medium and $115 per DALY averted for the high scenario. Under the three scenarios described above, our analysis demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of the male condom in preventing unintended pregnancy and HIV and STI new infections. Policy makers should increase budgets for condom programming to increase the health return on investment of scarce resources.