Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe recognition and fulfilment of the sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) of all individuals and couples affected by HIV, including HIV‐serodiscordant couples, requires intervention strategies aimed at achieving safe and healthy pregnancies and preventing undesired pregnancies. Reducing risk of horizontal and vertical transmission and addressing HIV‐related infertility are key components of such interventions. In this commentary, we present challenges and opportunities for achieving safe pregnancies for serodiscordant couples through a social ecological lens. At the individual level, knowledge (e.g. of HIV status, assisted reproductive technologies) and skills (e.g. adhering to antiretroviral therapy or pre‐exposure prophylaxis) are important. At the couple level, communication between partners around HIV status disclosure, fertility desires and safer pregnancy is required. Within the structural domain, social norms, stigma and discrimination from families, community and social networks influence individual and couple experiences. The availability and quality of safer conception and fertility support services within the healthcare system remains essential, including training for healthcare providers and strengthening integration of SRHR and HIV services. Policies, legislation and funding can improve access to SRHR services. A social ecological framework allows us to examine interactions between levels and how interventions at multiple levels can better support HIV‐serodiscordant couples to achieve safe pregnancies. Strategies to achieve safer pregnancies should consider interrelated challenges at different levels of a social ecological framework. Interventions across multiple levels, implemented concurrently, have the potential to maximize impact and ensure the full SRHR of HIV‐serodiscordant couples.

IntroductionWorldwide, HIV‐related mortality among adolescents living with HIV (ALHIV) increased by 50% from 2005 to 2012 and is attributed in part to a lack of support for adolescent retention to care and adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART). This vulnerability reinforces the need to better understand incomplete ART adherence among ALHIV, particularly in sub‐Saharan Africa, where the majority of the world's 2.1 million ALHIV reside.MethodsFrom December 2011 to February 2012, we conducted in‐depth interviews with 32 ALHIV (aged 15 to 18) and 23 of their adult caregivers in the Copperbelt Province of Zambia. Interviews were transcribed and translated. An iterative qualitative process was used to code and analyze the data and main themes were summarized regarding the barriers to and facilitators of ART adherence.ResultsMore than a quarter of ALHIV reported missing a day or more of ART (ranging from one day to six months). Barriers to ART adherence included fear of disclosure and anticipated stigma. Few youth were willing to take their drugs outside of the home, which led to missed doses of ART. Similarly, families tended to manage HIV within the home only. As a result, although caregivers and families were often the greatest source of emotional and instrumental support, they coped with HIV in isolation of other potential support from their communities, schools or churches. Factors that supported ART adherence included attending clinic‐sponsored youth groups, wanting to maintain one's health and using phone and clock alarms. Involvement of adult caregivers in HIV management varied greatly and was often based on the age and health status of the youth. Some caregivers struggled with letting the adolescents assume responsibility for their medication, and ALHIV had few self‐management skills and tools to help them regularly take ART.ConclusionsThese data highlight the importance of families and home environments in supporting adherence to ART among ALHIV. Skill‐building and family‐based interventions to prepare ALHIV and their adult caregivers for HIV self‐management and HIV status disclosure by youth are of paramount importance. Future research and programmes also need to address the fears adolescents and families have regarding HIV‐related stigma that shape young peoples' adherence behaviours.

AbstractIntroductionWhile disengagement from HIV care threatens the health of persons living with HIV (PLWH) and incidence‐reduction targets, re‐engagement is a critical step towards positive outcomes. Studies that establish a deeper understanding of successful return to clinical care among previously disengaged PLWH and the factors supporting re‐engagement are essential to facilitate long‐term care continuity.MethodsWe conducted narrative, patient‐centred, in‐depth interviews between January and June 2019 with 20 PLWH in Lusaka, Zambia, who had disengaged and then re‐engaged in HIV care, identified through electronic medical records (EMRs). We applied narrative analysis techniques, and deductive and inductive thematic analysis to identify engagement patterns and enablers of return.ResultsWe inductively identified five trajectories of care engagement, suggesting patterns in patient characteristics, experienced barriers and return facilitators that may aid intervention targeting including: (1) intermittent engagement;(2) mostly engaged; (3) delayed linkage after testing; (4) needs time to initiate antiretroviral therapy (ART); and (5) re‐engagement with ART initiation. Patient‐identified periods of disengagement from care did not always align with care gaps indicated in the EMR. Key, interactive re‐engagement facilitators experienced by participants, with varied importance across trajectories, included a desire for physical wellness and social support manifested through verbal encouragement, facility outreach or personal facility connections and family instrumental support. The mechanisms through which facilitators led to return were: (1) the promising of living out one's life priorities; (2) feeling valued; (3) fostering interpersonal accountability; (4) re‐entry navigation support; (5) facilitated care and treatment access; and (6) management of significant barriers, such as depression.ConclusionsWhile preliminary, the identified trajectories may guide interventions to support re‐engagement, such as offering flexible ART access to patients with intermittent engagement patterns instead of stable patients only. Further, for re‐engagement interventions to achieve impact, they must activate mechanisms underlying re‐engagement behaviours. For example, facility outreach that reminds a patient to return to care but does not affirm a patient's value or navigate re‐entry is unlikely to be effective. The demonstrated importance of positive health facility connections reinforces a growing call for patient‐centred care. Additionally, interventions should consider the important role communities play in fostering treatment motivation and overcoming practical barriers.

AbstractIntroductionTracing patients lost to follow‐up (LTFU) from HIV care is widely practiced, yet we have little knowledge of its causal effect on care engagement. In a prospective, Zambian cohort, we examined the effect of tracing on return to care within 2 years of LTFU.MethodsWe traced a stratified, random sample of LTFU patients who had received HIV care between August 2013 and July 2015. LTFU was defined as a gap of >90 days from last scheduled appointment in the routine electronic medical record. Extracting 2 years of follow‐up visit data through 2017, we identified patients who returned. Using random selection for tracing as an instrumental variable (IV), we used conditional two‐stage least squares regression to estimate the local average treatment effect of tracer contact on return. We examined the observational association between tracer contact and return among patient sub‐groups self‐confirmed as disengaged from care.ResultsOf the 24,164 LTFU patients enumerated, 4380 were randomly selected for tracing and 1158 were contacted by a tracer within a median of 14.8 months post‐loss. IV analysis found that patients contacted by a tracer because they were randomized to tracing were no more likely to return than those not contacted (adjusted risk difference [aRD]: 3%, 95% CI: –2%, 8%, p = 0.23). Observational data showed that among contacted, disengaged patients, the rate of return was higher in the week following tracer contact (IR 5.74, 95% CI: 3.78–8.71) than in the 2 weeks to 1‐month post‐contact (IR 2.28, 95% CI: 1.40–3.72). There was a greater effect of tracing among patients lost for >6 months compared to those contacted within 3 months of loss.ConclusionsOverall, tracer contact did not causally increase LTFU patient return to HIV care, demonstrating the limited impact of tracing in this program, where contact occurred months after patients were LTFU. However, observational data suggest that tracing may speed return among some LTFU patients genuinely out‐of‐care. Further studies may improve tracing effectiveness by examining the mechanisms underlying the impact of tracing on return to care, the effect of tracing at different times‐since‐loss and using more accurate identification of patients who are truly disengaged to target tracing.