Suchergebnisse

INTRODUCTION: The HIV care cascade examines the attrition of people living with HIV from diagnosis to the use of antiretroviral therapy (ART) and suppression of viral replication. We reviewed the literature from sub-Saharan Africa to assess the definitions used for the different steps in the HIV care cascade. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and CINAHL for articles published from January 2004 to December 2020. Longitudinal and cross-sectional studies were included if they reported on at least one step of the UNAIDS 90-90-90 cascade or two steps of an extended 7-step cascade. A step was clearly defined if authors reported definitions for numerator and denominator, including the description of the eligible population and methods of assessment or measurement. The review protocol has been published and registered in Prospero. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Overall, 3364 articles were screened, and 82 studies from 19 countries met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were from Southern (38 studies, 34 from South Africa) and East Africa (29 studies). Fifty-eight studies (71.6%) were longitudinal, with a median follow-up of three years. The medium number of steps covered out of 7 steps was 3 (interquartile range [IQR] 2 to 4); the median year of publication was 2015 (IQR 2013 to 2019). The number of different definitions for the numerators ranged from four definitions (for step "People living with HIV") to 21 (step "Viral suppression"). For the denominators, it ranged from three definitions ("Diagnosed and aware of HIV status") to 14 ("Viral suppression"). Only 12 studies assessed all three of the 90-90-90 steps. Most studies used longitudinal data, but denominator-denominator or denominator-numerator linkages over several steps were rare. Also, cascade data are lacking for many countries. Our review covers the academic literature but did not consider other data, such as government reports on the HIV care cascade. Also, it did not examine disengagement and reengagement in care. CONCLUSIONS: The proportions of patients retained at each step of the HIV care cascade cannot be compared between studies, countries and time periods, nor meta-analysed, due to the many different definitions used for numerators and denominators. There is a need for standardization of methods and definitions.

INTRODUCTION: The HIV care cascade examines the attrition of people living with HIV from diagnosis to the use of antiretroviral therapy (ART) and suppression of viral replication. We reviewed the literature from sub‐Saharan Africa to assess the definitions used for the different steps in the HIV care cascade. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and CINAHL for articles published from January 2004 to December 2020. Longitudinal and cross‐sectional studies were included if they reported on at least one step of the UNAIDS 90‐90‐90 cascade or two steps of an extended 7‐step cascade. A step was clearly defined if authors reported definitions for numerator and denominator, including the description of the eligible population and methods of assessment or measurement. The review protocol has been published and registered in Prospero. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Overall, 3364 articles were screened, and 82 studies from 19 countries met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were from Southern (38 studies, 34 from South Africa) and East Africa (29 studies). Fifty‐eight studies (71.6%) were longitudinal, with a median follow‐up of three years. The medium number of steps covered out of 7 steps was 3 (interquartile range [IQR] 2 to 4); the median year of publication was 2015 (IQR 2013 to 2019). The number of different definitions for the numerators ranged from four definitions (for step "People living with HIV") to 21 (step "Viral suppression"). For the denominators, it ranged from three definitions ("Diagnosed and aware of HIV status") to 14 ("Viral suppression"). Only 12 studies assessed all three of the 90‐90‐90 steps. Most studies used longitudinal data, but denominator–denominator or denominator–numerator linkages over several steps were rare. Also, cascade data are lacking for many countries. Our review covers the academic literature but did not consider other data, such as government reports on the HIV care cascade. Also, it did not examine disengagement and reengagement in care. CONCLUSIONS: The proportions of patients ...

INTRODUCTION The HIV care cascade examines the attrition of people living with HIV from diagnosis to the use of antiretroviral therapy (ART) and suppression of viral replication. We reviewed the literature from sub-Saharan Africa to assess the definitions used for the different steps in the HIV care cascade. METHODS We searched PubMed, Embase and CINAHL for articles published from January 2004 to December 2020. Longitudinal and cross-sectional studies were included if they reported on at least one step of the UNAIDS 90-90-90 cascade or two steps of an extended 7-step cascade. A step was clearly defined if authors reported definitions for numerator and denominator, including the description of the eligible population and methods of assessment or measurement. The review protocol has been published and registered in Prospero. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Overall, 3364 articles were screened, and 82 studies from 19 countries met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were from Southern (38 studies, 34 from South Africa) and East Africa (29 studies). Fifty-eight studies (71.6%) were longitudinal, with a median follow-up of three years. The medium number of steps covered out of 7 steps was 3 (interquartile range [IQR] 2 to 4); the median year of publication was 2015 (IQR 2013 to 2019). The number of different definitions for the numerators ranged from four definitions (for step "People living with HIV") to 21 (step "Viral suppression"). For the denominators, it ranged from three definitions ("Diagnosed and aware of HIV status") to 14 ("Viral suppression"). Only 12 studies assessed all three of the 90-90-90 steps. Most studies used longitudinal data, but denominator-denominator or denominator-numerator linkages over several steps were rare. Also, cascade data are lacking for many countries. Our review covers the academic literature but did not consider other data, such as government reports on the HIV care cascade. Also, it did not examine disengagement and reengagement in care. CONCLUSIONS The proportions of patients retained at each step of the HIV care cascade cannot be compared between studies, countries and time periods, nor meta-analysed, due to the many different definitions used for numerators and denominators. There is a need for standardization of methods and definitions.

AbstractIntroductionThe HIV care cascade examines the attrition of people living with HIV from diagnosis to the use of antiretroviral therapy (ART) and suppression of viral replication. We reviewed the literature from sub‐Saharan Africa to assess the definitions used for the different steps in the HIV care cascade.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase and CINAHL for articles published from January 2004 to December 2020. Longitudinal and cross‐sectional studies were included if they reported on at least one step of the UNAIDS 90‐90‐90 cascade or two steps of an extended 7‐step cascade. A step was clearly defined if authors reported definitions for numerator and denominator, including the description of the eligible population and methods of assessment or measurement. The review protocol has been published and registered in Prospero.Results and discussionOverall, 3364 articles were screened, and 82 studies from 19 countries met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were from Southern (38 studies, 34 from South Africa) and East Africa (29 studies). Fifty‐eight studies (71.6%) were longitudinal, with a median follow‐up of three years. The medium number of steps covered out of 7 steps was 3 (interquartile range [IQR] 2 to 4); the median year of publication was 2015 (IQR 2013 to 2019). The number of different definitions for the numerators ranged from four definitions (for step "People living with HIV") to 21 (step "Viral suppression"). For the denominators, it ranged from three definitions ("Diagnosed and aware of HIV status") to 14 ("Viral suppression"). Only 12 studies assessed all three of the 90‐90‐90 steps. Most studies used longitudinal data, but denominator–denominator or denominator–numerator linkages over several steps were rare. Also, cascade data are lacking for many countries. Our review covers the academic literature but did not consider other data, such as government reports on the HIV care cascade. Also, it did not examine disengagement and reengagement in care.ConclusionsThe proportions of patients retained at each step of the HIV care cascade cannot be compared between studies, countries and time periods, nor meta‐analysed, due to the many different definitions used for numerators and denominators. There is a need for standardization of methods and definitions.

AIMS OF THE STUDY Vaccination is regarded as the most promising response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We assessed opinions about COVID-19 vaccination, willingness to be vaccinated, and reasons for vaccination hesitancy among healthcare workers. METHODS We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey among 3,793 healthcare workers in December 2020 in the Canton of Solothurn, Switzerland, before the start of the national COVID-19 vaccination campaign. RESULTS Median age was 43 years (interquartile range [IQR] 31-53), 2,841 were female (74.9%). A total of 1,511 healthcare workers (39.8%) reported willingness to accept vaccination, whereas 1,114 (29.4%) were unsure and 1,168 (30.8%) would decline vaccination. Among medical doctors, 76.1% were willing, whereas only 27.8% of nurses expressed willingness. Among the 1,168 healthcare workers who would decline vaccination, 1,073 (91.9%) expressed concerns about vaccine safety and side effects. The willingness of healthcare workers to be vaccinated was associated with older age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.97, 95% confidence interval [Cl] 1.71-2.27) and having been vaccinated for influenza this year (aOR 2.70, 95% Cl 2.20-3.31). Healthcare workers who reported a lack of confidence in government were less likely to be willing to be vaccinated (aOR 0.58, 95% Cl 0.40-0.84), and women were less willing to be vaccinated than men (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.28-0.38). CONCLUSION Less than half of healthcare workers reported willingness to be vaccinated before the campaign start, but proportions varied greatly depending on profession and workplace. Strategies with clear and objective messages that particularly address the concerns of healthcare workers are needed if their willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19 is to be further increased.

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.