Suchergebnisse

This paper provides a description of the MyCap data collection platform, utilization metrics, and vignettes associated with use from diverse research institutions. MyCap is a participant-facing mobile application for survey data collection and the automated administration of active tasks (activities performed by participants using mobile device sensors under semi-controlled conditions). Launched in 2018, MyCap is a no-code solution for research teams conducting longitudinal studies, integrates tightly with REDCap and is available at no cost to research teams at academic, nonprofit, or government organizations. MyCap has been deployed at multiple research institutions with application usage logged across 135 countries in 2021. Vignettes demonstrate that MyCap empowered research teams to explore and implement novel methods of information collection and use. MyCap's integration with REDCap provides a comprehensive data collection ecosystem and is best suited for longitudinal studies with frequent requests for information from participants.

The Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) data management platform was developed in 2004 to address an institutional need at Vanderbilt University, then shared with a limited number of adopting sites beginning in 2006. Given bi-directional benefit in early sharing experiments, we created a broader consortium sharing and support model for any academic, non-profit, or government partner wishing to adopt the software. Our sharing framework and consortium-based support model have evolved over time along with the size of the consortium (currently more than 3,200 REDCap partners across 128 countries). While the "REDCap Consortium" model represents only one example of how to build and disseminate a software platform, lessons learned from our approach may assist other research institutions seeking to build and disseminate innovative technologies.

AbstractIntroductionEvaluating outcomes of paediatric patients with HIV provides crucial data for clinicians and policymakers. We analysed mortality and clinical events rates among children, adolescents, and youth with perinatally acquired HIV (PHIV) aged 0 to 24 years stratified by time‐varying age and CD4, before and after antiretroviral therapy (ART), in the paediatric IeDEA multiregional collaboration (East, West, Central and Southern Africa, Asia‐Pacific, and Central/South America and the Caribbean).MethodsART‐naïve children with HIV enrolled before age 10 (proxy for perinatal infection) at IeDEA sites between 2004 and 2016, with ≥1 CD4 measurement during follow‐up were included. We estimated incidence rates (IR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of mortality and first occurrence of WHO‐4 and WHO‐3 events, excluding tuberculosis, during person‐years (PY) spent within different age (<2, 2 to 4, 5 to 9, 10 to 14, 15 to 19, 20 to 24) and CD4 (percent when <5 years [<15%, 15% to 24%, ≥25%]; count when ≥5 years [<200, 200 to 499, ≥500 cells/µL]) strata. We used linear mixed models to predict CD4 evolution, with trends modelled by region.ResultsIn the pre‐ART period, 49 137 participants contributed 51 966 PY of follow‐up (median enrolment age: 3.9 years). The overall pre‐ART IRs were 2.8/100 PY (95% CI: 2.7 to 2.9) for mortality, 3.3/100 PY (95% CI: 3.0 to 3.5) for first occurrence of a WHO‐4 event, and 7.0/100 PY (95% CI: 6.7 to 7.4) for first occurrence of a WHO‐3 event. Lower CD4 and younger age strata were associated with increased rates of both mortality and first occurrence of a clinical event. In the post‐ART period, 52 147 PHIVY contributed 207 945 PY (ART initiation median age: 4.5 years). Overall mortality IR was 1.4/100 PY (95% CI: 1.4 to 1.5) and higher in low CD4 strata; patients at each end of the age spectrum (<2 and >19) had increased mortality post‐ART. IRs for first occurrence of WHO‐4 and WHO‐3 events were 1.3/100 PY (95% CI: 1.2 to 1.4) and 2.1/100 PY (95% CI: 2.0 to 2.2) respectively. These were also associated with lower CD4 and younger age strata.ConclusionsMortality and incidence of clinical events were highest in both younger (<2 years) and older (>19 years) youth with PHIV. Scaling‐up services for <2 years (early access to HIV diagnosis and care) and >19 years (adolescent‐ and youth‐focused health services) is critical to improve outcomes among PHIVY.

AbstractIntroductionDisclosure of HIV status to HIV‐infected children and adolescents is a major care challenge. We describe current site characteristics related to disclosure of HIV status in resource‐limited paediatric HIV care settings within the International Epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) consortium.MethodsAn online site assessment survey was conducted across the paediatric HIV care sites within six global regions of IeDEA. A standardized questionnaire was administered to the sites through the REDCap platform.ResultsFrom June 2014 to March 2015, all 180 sites of the IeDEA consortium in 31 countries completed the online survey: 57% were urban, 43% were health centres and 86% were integrated clinics (serving both adults and children). Almost all the sites (98%) reported offering disclosure counselling services. Disclosure counselling was most often provided by counsellors (87% of sites), but also by nurses (77%), physicians (74%), social workers (68%), or other clinicians (65%). It was offered to both caregivers and children in 92% of 177 sites with disclosure counselling. Disclosure resources and procedures varied across geographical regions. Most sites in each region reported performing staff members' training on disclosure (72% to 96% of sites per region), routinely collecting HIV disclosure status (50% to 91%) and involving caregivers in the disclosure process (71% to 100%). A disclosure protocol was available in 14% to 71% of sites. Among the 143 sites (79%) routinely collecting disclosure status process, the main collection method was by asking the caregiver or child (85%) about the child's knowledge of his/her HIV status. Frequency of disclosure status assessment was every three months in 63% of the sites, and 71% stored disclosure status data electronically.ConclusionThe majority of the sites reported offering disclosure counselling services, but educational and social support resources and capacities for data collection varied across regions. Paediatric HIV care sites worldwide still need specific staff members' training on disclosure, development and implementation of guidelines for HIV disclosure, and standardized data collection on this key issue to ensure the long‐term health and wellbeing of HIV‐infected youth.

AbstractIntroductionIntegration of services to screen and manage mental health and substance use disorders (MSDs) into HIV care settings has been identified as a promising strategy to improve mental health and HIV treatment outcomes among people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Data on the extent to which HIV treatment sites in LMICs screen and manage MSDs are limited. The objective of this study was to assess practices for screening and treatment of MSDs at HIV clinics in LMICs participating in the International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) consortium.MethodsWe surveyed a stratified random sample of 95 HIV clinics in 29 LMICs in the Caribbean, Central and South America, Asia‐Pacific and sub‐Saharan Africa. The survey captured information onsite characteristics and screening and treatment practices for depression, post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance use disorders (SUDs) and other mental health disorders.ResultsMost sites (n = 76, 80%) were in urban areas. Mental health screening varied by disorder: 57% of sites surveyed screened for depression, 19% for PTSD, 55% for SUDs and 29% for other mental health disorders. Depression, PTSD, SUDs and other mental health disorders were reported as managed on site (having services provided at the HIV clinic or same health facility) at 70%, 51%, 41% and 47% of sites respectively. Combined availability of screening and on‐site management of depression, PTSD, and SUDs, and other mental health disorders was reported by 42%, 14%, 26% and 19% of sites, respectively. On‐site management of depression and PTSD was reported significantly less often in rural as compared to urban settings (depression: 33% and 78% respectively; PTSD: 24% and 58% respectively). Screening for depression and SUDs was least commonly reported by HIV programmes that treated only children as compared to HIV programmes that treated only adults or treated both adults and children.ConclusionsSignificant gaps exist in the management of MSDs in HIV care settings in LMICs, particularly in rural settings. Identification and evaluation of optimal implementation strategies to scale and sustain integrated MSDs and HIV care is needed.

AbstractIntroductionSince 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended that all people living with HIV (PLHIV) initiate antiretroviral treatment (ART), irrespective of CD4+ count or clinical stage. National adoption of universal treatment has accelerated since WHO's 2015 "Treat All" recommendation; however, little is known about the translation of this guidance into practice. This study aimed to assess the status of Treat All implementation across regions, countries, and levels of the health care delivery system.MethodsBetween June and December 2017, 201/221 (91%) adult HIV treatment sites that participate in the global IeDEA research consortium completed a survey on capacity and practices related to HIV care. Located in 41 countries across seven geographic regions, sites provided information on the status and timing of site‐level introduction of Treat All, as well as site‐level practices related to ART initiation.ResultsAlmost all sites (93%) reported that they had begun implementing Treat All, and there were no statistically significant differences in site‐level Treat All introduction by health facility type, urban/rural location, sector (public/private) or country income level. The median time between national policy adoption and site‐level introduction was one month. In countries where Treat All was not yet adopted in national guidelines, 69% of sites reported initiating all patients on ART, regardless of clinical criteria, and these sites had been implementing Treat All for a median period of seven months at the time of the survey. The majority of sites (77%) reported typically initiating patients on ART within 14 days of confirming diagnosis, with 60% to 62% of sites implementing Treat All in East, Southern and West Africa reporting same‐day ART initiation for most patients.ConclusionsBy mid‐ to late‐2017, the Treat All strategy was the standard of care at almost all IeDEA sites, including rural, primary‐level health facilities in low‐resource settings. While further assessments of site‐level capacity to provide high‐quality HIV care under Treat All and to support sustained viral suppression after ART initiation are needed, the widespread introduction of Treat All at the service delivery level is a critical step towards global targets for ending the HIV epidemic as a public health threat.

IntroductionHIV care and treatment programmes worldwide are transforming as they push to deliver universal access to essential prevention, care and treatment services to persons living with HIV and their communities. The characteristics and capacity of these HIV programmes affect patient outcomes and quality of care. Despite the importance of ensuring optimal outcomes, few studies have addressed the capacity of HIV programmes to deliver comprehensive care. We sought to describe such capacity in HIV programmes in seven regions worldwide.MethodsStaff from 128 sites in 41 countries participating in the International epidemiologic Databases to Evaluate AIDS completed a site survey from 2009 to 2010, including sites in the Asia‐Pacific region (n=20), Latin America and the Caribbean (n=7), North America (n=7), Central Africa (n=12), East Africa (n=51), Southern Africa (n=16) and West Africa (n=15). We computed a measure of the comprehensiveness of care based on seven World Health Organization‐recommended essential HIV services.ResultsMost sites reported serving urban (61%; region range (rr): 33–100%) and both adult and paediatric populations (77%; rr: 29–96%). Only 45% of HIV clinics that reported treating children had paediatricians on staff. As for the seven essential services, survey respondents reported that CD4+ cell count testing was available to all but one site, while tuberculosis (TB) screening and community outreach services were available in 80 and 72%, respectively. The remaining four essential services – nutritional support (82%), combination antiretroviral therapy adherence support (88%), prevention of mother‐to‐child transmission (PMTCT) (94%) and other prevention and clinical management services (97%) – were uniformly available. Approximately half (46%) of sites reported offering all seven services. Newer sites and sites in settings with low rankings on the UN Human Development Index (HDI), especially those in the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief focus countries, tended to offer a more comprehensive array of essential services. HIV care programme characteristics and comprehensiveness varied according to the number of years the site had been in operation and the HDI of the site setting, with more recently established clinics in low‐HDI settings reporting a more comprehensive array of available services. Survey respondents frequently identified contact tracing of patients, patient outreach, nutritional counselling, onsite viral load testing, universal TB screening and the provision of isoniazid preventive therapy as unavailable services.ConclusionsThis study serves as a baseline for on‐going monitoring of the evolution of care delivery over time and lays the groundwork for evaluating HIV treatment outcomes in relation to site capacity for comprehensive care.

AbstractIntroductionCommon mental disorders (CMDs) are highly prevalent among people with HIV. Integrating mental healthcare into HIV care may improve mental health and HIV treatment outcomes. We describe the reported availability of screening and treatment for depression, anxiety and post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at global HIV treatment centres participating in the International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) Consortium in 2020 and changes in availability at sites in low‐ or middle‐income countries (LMICs) between 2016/2017 and 2020.MethodsIn 2020, 238 sites contributing individual‐level data to the IeDEA Consortium and in 2016/2017 a stratified random sample of IeDEA sites in LMICs were eligible to participate in site surveys on the availability of screening and treatment for CMDs. We assessed trends over time for 68 sites across 27 LMICs that participated in both surveys.ResultsAmong the 238 sites eligible to participate in the 2020 site survey, 227 (95%) participated, and mental health screening and treatment data were available for 223 (98%) sites across 41 countries. A total of 95 sites across 29 LMICs completed the 2016/2017 survey. In 2020, 68% of sites were in urban settings, and 77% were in LMICs. Overall, 50%, 14% and 12% of sites reported screening with a validated instrument for depression, anxiety and PTSD, respectively. Screening plus treatment in the form of counselling was available for depression, anxiety and PTSD at 46%, 13% and 11% of sites, respectively. Screening plus treatment in the form of medication was available for depression, anxiety and PTSD at 36%, 11% and 8% of sites, respectively. Among sites that participated in both surveys, screening for depression was more commonly available in 2020 than 2016/2017 (75% vs. 59%, respectively, p = 0.048).ConclusionsReported availability of screening for depression increased among this group of IeDEA sites in LMICs between 2016/2017 and 2020. However, substantial gaps persist in the availability of mental healthcare at HIV treatment sites across global settings, particularly in resource‐constrained settings. Implementation of sustainable strategies to integrate mental health services into HIV care is needed.

ABSTRACTIntroduction: An important determinant of the effectiveness of HIV treatment programs is the capacity of sites to implement recommended services and identify systematic changes needed to ensure that invested resources translate into improved patient outcomes. We conducted a survey in 2014 of HIV care and treatment sites in the seven regions of the International epidemiologic Database to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) Consortium to evaluate facility characteristics, HIV prevention, care and treatment services provided, laboratory capacity, and trends in the comprehensiveness of care compared to data obtained in the 2009 baseline survey.Methods: Clinical staff from 262 treatment sites in 45 countries in IeDEA completed a site survey from September 2014 to January 2015, including Asia‐Pacific with Australia (n = 50), Latin America and the Caribbean (n = 11), North America (n = 45), Central Africa (n = 17), East Africa (n = 36), Southern Africa (n = 87), and West Africa (n = 16). For the 55 sites with complete data from both the 2009 and 2014 survey, we evaluated change in comprehensiveness of care.Results: The majority of the 262 sites (61%) offered seven essential services (ART adherence, nutritional support, PMTCT, CD4+ cell count testing, tuberculosis screening, HIV prevention, and outreach). Sites that were publicly funded (64%), cared for adults and children (68%), low or middle Human Development Index (HDI) rank (68%, 68%), and received PEPFAR support (71%) were most often fully comprehensive. CD4+ cell count testing was universally available (98%) but only 62% of clinics offered it onsite. Approximately two‐thirds (69%) of sites reported routine viral load testing (44–100%), with 39% having it onsite. Laboratory capacity to monitor antiretroviral‐related toxicity and diagnose opportunistic infections varied widely by testing modality and region. In the subgroup of 55 sites with two surveys, comprehensiveness of services provided significantly increased across all regions from 2009 to 2014 (5.7 to 6.5, p < 0.001).Conclusions: The availability of viral load monitoring remains suboptimal and should be a focus for site capacity, particularly in East and Southern Africa, where the majority of those initiating on ART reside. However, the comprehensiveness of care provided increased over the past 5 years and was related to type of funding received (publicly funded and PEPFAR supported).

AbstractIntroductionInterruptions in treatment pose risks for people with HIV (PWH) and threaten progress in ending the HIV epidemic; however, the COVID‐19 pandemic's impact on HIV service delivery across diverse settings is not broadly documented.MethodsFrom September 2020 to March 2021, the International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) research consortium surveyed 238 HIV care sites across seven geographic regions to document constraints in HIV service delivery during the first year of the pandemic and strategies for ensuring care continuity for PWH. Descriptive statistics were stratified by national HIV prevalence (<1%, 1–4.9% and ≥5%) and country income levels.ResultsQuestions about pandemic‐related consequences for HIV care were completed by 225 (95%) sites in 42 countries with low (n= 82), medium (n= 86) and high (n= 57) HIV prevalence, including low‐ (n= 57), lower‐middle (n= 79), upper‐middle (n= 39) and high‐ (n= 50) income countries. Most sites reported being subject to pandemic‐related restrictions on travel, service provision or other operations (75%), and experiencing negative impacts (76%) on clinic operations, including decreased hours/days, reduced provider availability, clinic reconfiguration for COVID‐19 services, record‐keeping interruptions and suspension of partner support. Almost all sites in low‐prevalence and high‐income countries reported increased use of telemedicine (85% and 100%, respectively), compared with less than half of sites in high‐prevalence and lower‐income settings. Few sites in high‐prevalence settings (2%) reported suspending antiretroviral therapy (ART) clinic services, and many reported adopting mitigation strategies to support adherence, including multi‐month dispensing of ART (95%) and designating community ART pick‐up points (44%). While few sites (5%) reported stockouts of first‐line ART regimens, 10–11% reported stockouts of second‐ and third‐line regimens, respectively, primarily in high‐prevalence and lower‐income settings. Interruptions in HIV viral load (VL) testing included suspension of testing (22%), longer turnaround times (41%) and supply/reagent stockouts (22%), but did not differ across settings.ConclusionsWhile many sites in high HIV prevalence settings and lower‐income countries reported introducing or expanding measures to support treatment adherence and continuity of care, the COVID‐19 pandemic resulted in disruptions to VL testing and ART supply chains that may negatively affect the quality of HIV care in these settings.

AbstractIntroduction"Treat All" – the treatment of all people with HIV, irrespective of disease stage or CD4 cell count – represents a paradigm shift in HIV care that has the potential to end AIDS as a public health threat. With accelerating implementation of Treat All in sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA), there is a need for a focused agenda and research to identify and inform strategies for promoting timely uptake of HIV treatment, retention in care, and sustained viral suppression and addressing bottlenecks impeding implementation.MethodsThe Delphi approach was used to develop consensus around research priorities for Treat All implementation in SSA. Through an iterative process (June 2017 to March 2018), a set of research priorities was collectively formulated and refined by a technical working group and shared for review, deliberation and prioritization by more than 200 researchers, implementation experts, policy/decision‐makers, and HIV community representatives in East, Central, Southern and West Africa.Results and discussionThe process resulted in a list of nine research priorities for generating evidence to guide Treat All policies, implementation strategies and monitoring efforts. These priorities highlight the need for increased focus on adolescents, men, and those with mental health and substance use disorders – groups that remain underserved in SSA and for whom more effective testing, linkage and care strategies need to be identified. The priorities also reflect consensus on the need to: (1) generate accurate national and sub‐national estimates of the size of key populations and describe those who remain underserved along the HIV‐care continuum; (2) characterize the timeliness of HIV care and short‐ and long‐term HIV care continuum outcomes, as well as factors influencing timely achievement of these outcomes; (3) estimate the incidence and prevalence of HIV‐drug resistance and regimen switching; and (4) identify cost‐effective and affordable service delivery models and strategies to optimize uptake and minimize gaps, disparities, and losses along the HIV‐care continuum, particularly among underserved populations.ConclusionsReflecting consensus among a broad group of experts, researchers, policy‐ and decision‐makers, PLWH, and other stakeholders, the resulting research priorities highlight important evidence gaps that are relevant for ministries of health, funders, normative bodies and research networks.