-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
Param Revamp - HIV #1742
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Param Revamp - HIV #1742
Conversation
|
Thanks @mmsuarezcosta, this looks good to me, and I think is ready for @tdm32's review! |
|
|
||
| # check still eligible, person must be <30 years old or a fsw | ||
| if (person["age_years"] > 30) or not person["li_is_sexworker"]: | ||
| if (person["age_years"] > p['age_max_prep']) or not person["li_is_sexworker"]: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this should be the max age of AGYW (age_max_agyw)
| self, | ||
| priority=1, | ||
| topen=self.sim.date + pd.DateOffset(days=7), | ||
| topen=self.sim.date + pd.DateOffset(days=p['prep_cons_notavailable_retry_days']), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
prep_cons_notavailable_retry_days - should these parameters which describe repeat healthcare seeking behaviour if no cons available be standardised? One param for repeat ARV/PrEP/VMMC etc if no consumables on the day?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @tdm32 , I think you are in the best position to decide how disaggregated these should be. If currently there is one single assumption around repeated tries, regardless of the consumable type, then we could definitely standardise/unify it.
|
On the sheet scaleup_parameters.csv columns max and min have been changed to prior_min and prior_max. This is not quite right, these values are hypothetical values for reducing program to min performance and scaling up to max performance for scenario analyses. |
Thanks @tdm32 , absolutely prior_min and prior_max should be N/A for scenario parameters so I will correct this. |
Files
Files changes:
target_valuehas been renamedvalue, and the max and mins have been changed toprior_minandprior_max. The logic is that anything within the scale_up file is a target by definition, so it is not required to label the value itself as target.Files used in hiv module that require refactoring (request for @mnjowe to support in future iterations):
Calibration Data Files
Files Not Used in Code (May be legacy - consider deleting)
output_plots.pyreferences 2015 version that doesn't exist, consider updating reference)output_plots.pyreferences 2015 version that doesn't exist, consider updating reference)Parameters
Assumptions
mean_months_between_aids_and_deathmean_months_between_aids_and_death_infantrr_fsw(discrepancy in write-up value20and parameter.csv value of25)rr_behaviour_changeproportion_reduction_in_risk_of_hiv_aq_if_on_prepmean_months_between_aids_and_death_infantUndetermined, calibration
I cross-checked the write-up and notes in the parameter CSV file to determine which I believed to be calibrated.
hiv_testing_rate_adjustment,treatment_initiation_adjustment,vs_adjustment: believe all these are calibrated based on write-up and parameter documentation in codeprob_circ_after_hiv_test,increase_in_prob_circ_2019,prob_circ_for_child_before_2020,prob_circ_for_child_from_2020): Based on write-up, vmc was calibrated to national rates, so I have labeled all these as calibratedaids_tb_treatment_adjustment: believe it is calibrated because of adjustment labelprob_hiv_test_at_anc_or_delivery) I have marked as local, but they may have been adjusted for calibration.Hard-Coding
Notes (Future development)