Suchergebnisse

Recognizing the need for greater attention worldwide to noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes, implementers are increasingly putting NCD programs in place. This effort is yielding practice-based experiences and evidence that may not be systematically documented and shared, reflected in a limited body of peer-reviewed and gray literature and few platforms for knowledge exchange. To draw on such knowledge that is grounded in experience, we gathered information through reviews of literature, local needs assessments, technical dialogues at the national and local levels, and structured global stakeholder engagement events to yield four principles that reflect the current state of knowledge on developing and implementing community-based services for health promotion and disease management: (1) Support and empower people living with chronic disease to provide better self-care and advocate for improved services. (2) Invest in integrating NCDs into existing development platforms but do not underestimate true costs and effort. (3) Engage a broad range of front-line health workers to champion care. (4) Build coalitions to leverage the strengths of both the public sector's and private sector's capacity and leadership. If applied consistently by funders and implementers, these principles have the potential to accelerate progress in reaching low-resourced communities with NCD care and treatment services. At the same time, if implementers commit to proactively, transparently, and collaboratively sharing experience-based learning, the NCD movement will not only pick up speed and be well supported by evidence but will also benefit from programmatic, financial, and political synergies at the global, national, and local levels.

Background Since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in 2011, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey have hosted large refugee populations, with a high pre-conflict burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Objectives We aimed to describe the ways in which these three host country health systems have provided NCD services to Syrian refugees over time, and to highlight the successes and challenges they encountered. Methods We conducted a descriptive review of the academic and grey literature, published between March 2011 and March 2017, using PubMed and Google searches complemented with documents provided by relevant stakeholders. Results Forty-one articles and reports met our search criteria. Despite the scarcity of systematic population-level data, these documents highlight the high burden of reported NCDs among Syrian refugees, especially amongst older adults. The three host countries utilized different approaches to the design, delivery and financing of NCD services for these refugees. In Jordan and Lebanon, Ministries of Health and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) coordinate a diverse group of health care providers to deliver health services to Syrian refugees at a subsidized cost. In Turkey, however, services are provided solely by the Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD), a Turkish governmental agency, with no cost to patients for primary or secondary care. Access to NCD services varied both within and between countries, with no data available from Turkey. The cost of NCD treatment is the primary barrier to accessing healthcare, with high out-of-pocket payments required for medications and secondary and tertiary care services, despite the availability of free or subsidized primary health services. Financial impediments led refugees to adopt coping strategies, including returning to Syria to seek treatment, with associated frequent treatment interruptions. These gaps were compounded by health system related barriers such as complex referral systems, lack of effective guidance on navigating the health system, limited health facility capacity and suboptimal NCD health education. Conclusion As funding shortages for refugee services continue, innovative service delivery models are needed to create responsive and sustainable solutions to the NCD burden among refugees in host countries.

AbstractIntroductionDespite increasing focus on test and treat strategies for people living with HIV (PLHIV), many continue to enrol late in care and initiate antiretroviral therapy (ART) when they have advanced HIV disease.MethodsWe analyzed PLHIV ≥15 years of age starting ART in Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique and Tanzania from 2005 to 2015 based on CD4+ groups at ART initiation (≥200, 100 to 199, 50 to 99 and <50 cells/mm3) to examine attrition (loss to follow‐up (LTF) and death) using Kaplan‐Meier estimators and Cox proportional hazards models. LTF was defined as no clinic visit >6 months; deaths were ascertained from medical records.Results and discussionA total of 305,443 PLHIV were included in the analysis: 118,580 (38.8%) CD4+ ≥200, 91,788 (30.1%) CD4+ 100 to 199, 44,029 (14.4%) CD4+ 50 to 99 and 51,046 (16.7%) CD4+ <50 cells/mm3. At 12 months after ART initiation, attrition for those with CD4+ ≥200, 100 to 199, 50 to 99 and <50 cells/mm3 was 21.3% (95% CI 21.1 to 21.6), 21.8% (95% CI 21.6 to 22.1), 27.3% (95% CI 26.9 to 27.7) and 33.6% (95% CI 33.2 to 34.0) respectively. In multivariable models, compared to PLHIV with CD4+ ≥200 cells/mm3, those with CD4+ 50 to 99 cells/mm3 had 29% increased risk of attrition (adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) 1.29, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.32) and those with <50 cells/mm3 had 56% increased risk of attrition (AHR 1.56, 95% CI 1.53 to 1.58). Men had higher attrition compared to women across all CD4+ groups and overall were 28% more likely to experience attrition (AHR 1.28, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.29). Even after ART initiation, PLHIV with advanced disease had notably inferior outcomes with substantial gradient within the low CD4+ strata highlighting the need for targeted interventions for these populations.ConclusionsGreater efforts, including the identification of effective differentiated service delivery models, are needed to ensure that all PLHIV starting treatment can garner the benefits from ART and achieve favourable outcomes.

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading causes of death and disability worldwide but have received suboptimal attention and funding from the global health community. While the first UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) for NCDs in 2011 aimed to stimulate donor funding and political action, only 1.3% of official development assistance for health was allocated to NCDs in 2015, even less than in 2011. In stark contrast, the UNGASS on HIV/AIDS in 2001 sparked billions of dollars in funding for HIV and enabled millions of HIV-infected individuals to access antiretroviral treatment. Using an existing analytic framework, we compare the global responses to the HIV and NCD epidemics and distill lessons from the HIV response that might be utilized to enhance the global NCD response. These include: (1) further educating and empowering communities and patients to increase demand for NCD services and to hold national governments accountable for establishing and achieving NCD targets, and (2) evidence to support the feasibility and effectiveness of large-scale NCD screening and treatment programs in low-resource settings. We conclude with a case study from Swaziland, a country that is making progress in confronting both HIV and NCDs.

Noncommunicable diseases (NCD) are the leading causes of death and disability worldwide but have received suboptimal attention and funding from the global health community. Although the first United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) for NCD in 2011 aimed to stimulate donor funding and political action, only 1.3% of official development assistance for health was allocated to NCD in 2015, even less than in 2011. In stark contrast, the UNGASS on human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) in 2001 sparked billions of dollars in funding for HIV and enabled millions of HIV-infected individuals to access antiretroviral treatment. Using an existing analytic framework, we compare the global responses to the HIV and NCD epidemics and distill lessons from the HIV response that might be utilized to enhance the global NCD response. These include: 1) further educating and empowering communities and patients to increase demand for NCD services and to hold national governments accountable for establishing and achieving NCD targets; and 2) evidence to support the feasibility and effectiveness of large-scale NCD screening and treatment programs in low-resource settings. We conclude with a case study from Swaziland, a country that is making progress in confronting both HIV and NCD. In September 2011, the United Nations (UN) convened a UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on noncommunicable diseases (NCD). The event was the second UN High Level Meeting ever held for a health issue, following the successful UNGASS on human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) in 2001. Modeled after its predecessor, the 2011 meeting was intended to catalyze a response to what the World Health Organization (WHO) called an epidemic of "silent killers" that were the leading causes of death and disability worldwide, yet receive little attention from the global health community [1]. Looking back to the prior UNGASS on HIV/AIDS a decade earlier, the NCD meeting aspired to similar goals: rallying multisectoral and cross-national partnerships; stimulating robust donor funding; spurring ambitious targets and commitments on the part of national governments; and catalyzing rapid scale-up of NCD services in resource-limited settings [2]. Advocates highlighted similarities between chronic NCD and HIV/AIDS, including a stark mismatch between the burden of disease and available funding, and the need for programmatic innovation, continuity care, and health systems strengthening 3, 4 and 5. The UNGASS on NCD was successful at producing a Political Declaration to combat NCD [6], and many countries affirmed a commitment to ambitious NCD targets and to implementing evidence-based "best buys" 7 and 8. Yet 5 years later, the global NCD response has languished in what some have called an environment of "malignant neglect" [9]. Despite the fact that NCD account for 37% of disability-adjusted life years in low-income countries [10], only 1.3% of official development assistance for health was allocated to NCD in 2015 [11], a proportion that decreased between 2011 and 2015 [12]. Few resource-limited countries have operational national NCD strategies or adequate NCD services, awareness of and treatment-seeking rates for NCD have not improved [13], and the vast majority of people with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and chronic respiratory disease remain undiagnosed and untreated 14 and 15. In contrast, in the years that followed the 2001 UNGASS, global spending on HIV increased by billions of dollars and the number of people initiating antiretroviral treatment (ART) in low- and middle-income countries soared from 400,000 in 2003 to nearly 17 million in 2015 [16].

AbstractIntroductionDespite the global scale‐up of HIV testing, prevention and treatment, these services remain inaccessible to groups most vulnerable to HIV. Globally, most new HIV infections are concentrated among members of key populations (KP), including female sex workers, men who have sex with men, transgender people, people who inject drugs and their sexual partners. These populations lag in access to HIV prevention and antiretroviral therapy (ART) and have less favourable HIV outcomes compared to the general population. Intersecting behavioural and structural factors contribute to these gaps in service access for at‐risk KP and those living with HIV; corresponding comprehensive approaches to improving service delivery for KP are urgently needed. Differentiated service delivery (DSD) models tailor HIV programmes to the needs and preferences of specific groups but are rarely implemented at scale for KP. We describe the FIKIA Project, which implemented innovative approaches to scaling up DSD models to reach and engage KP in Tanzania.MethodsThe FIKIA Project worked with diverse KP communities in Tanzania to tailor HIV services to their needs and to pair healthcare workers with trained peer educators and expert client counsellors to expand uptake of community‐based HIV testing and ART services. We analysed routine aggregate project data from 2016 to 2020 to describe project implementation, outcomes and best practices.Results and discussionThe FIKIA Project conducted 1,831,441 HIV tests in community settings; of the 98,349 (5.4%) individuals with new HIV diagnoses, 89,640 (91.1%) initiated ART. The project reached substantial numbers of KP: 203,233 received HIV tests, 28,830 (14.2%) received a new HIV diagnosis and 25,170 KP (87.3%) initiated ART at the point of diagnosis. Over time, HIV testing increased by 1.6 times overall (2.3 times among KP), HIV diagnoses increased by 8.7 times (10.9 times among KP) and ART initiation at the point of diagnosis increased from 80.0% to 95.9% overall (from 69.6% to 94.9% among KP).ConclusionsOver four years, the FIKIA Project scaled up HIV testing, diagnosis and treatment by using DSD principles to design services that meet the needs of KP and their communities.

AbstractIntroductionSuboptimal male engagement in HIV programmes is a persistent challenge, leading to lower coverage of HIV testing, prevention and treatment services, and to worse outcomes for men. Differentiated service delivery models, such as peer‐led community antiretroviral refill groups (CARGs), offer the opportunity to enhance patient satisfaction, retention and treatment outcomes. We conducted an exploratory qualitative study to identify facilitators and barriers to CARG participation by HIV‐positive men, with inputs from recipients of HIV care, community members, healthcare workers (HCWs), donors and policymakers.MethodsBetween July and October 2017, we conducted 20 focus group discussions (FGDs) with 147 adults living with HIV, including men and women enrolled in CARGs and men not enrolled in CARGs, and 46 key informant interviews (KIIs) with policymakers, donors, HCWs and community members. FGDs and KIIs were recorded, transcribed and translated. A constant comparison approach was used to triangulate findings and identify themes related to male engagement in CARGs in rural Zimbabwe.ResultsCARG participants, policymakers, donors, HCWs, and community members noted many advantages to CARG participation, including convenience, efficiency, solidarity and mutual psychosocial support. Although those familiar with CARGs reported that these groups decreased HIV‐related stigma, concerns about stigma and privacy were perceived to be the primary reason for men's non‐participation. Other important barriers to male enrolment included lack of awareness of CARGs, misunderstanding of how CARGs operate, few perceived benefits and lack of flexibility in CARG implementation.ConclusionsMore effective educational and awareness campaigns, community‐based anti‐stigma campaigns, more flexible CARG designs, and provision of financial and/or in‐kind support to CARG members could mitigate many of the barriers to male enrolment in CARGs. Men may also prefer alternative differentiated service delivery models that are facility‐based and/or do not require group participation.

AbstractIntroductionTuberculosis (TB) causes one‐third of HIV‐related deaths worldwide, making TB preventive treatment (TPT) a critical element of HIV programmes. Approximately 16% of people living with HIV (PLHIV) on antiretrovirals in Zimbabwe are enrolled in the Fast Track (FT) differentiated service delivery model, which includes multi‐month dispensing of antiretrovirals and quarterly health facility (HF) visits. We assessed the feasibility and acceptability of utilizing FT to deliver 3HP (3 months of once‐weekly rifapentine and isoniazid) for TPT by aligning TPT and HIV visits, providing multi‐month dispensing of 3HP, and using phone‐based monitoring and adherence support.MethodsWe recruited a purposive sample of 50 PLHIV enrolled in FT at a high‐volume HF in urban Zimbabwe. At enrolment, participants provided written informed consent, completed a baseline survey, and received counselling, education and a 3‐month supply of 3HP. A study nurse mentor called participants at weeks 2, 4 and 8 to monitor and support adherence and side effects. When participants returned for their routine 3‐month FT visit, they completed another survey, and study staff conducted a structured medical record review. In‐depth interviews were conducted with providers who participated in the pilot.ResultsParticipants were enrolled between April and June 2021 and followed through September 2021. Median age = 32 years (IQR 24,41), 50% female, median time in FT 1.8 years (IQR 0.8,2.7). Forty‐eight participants (96%) completed 3HP in 13 weeks; one completed in 16 weeks, and one stopped due to jaundice. Most participants (94%) reported "always" or "almost always" taking 3HP correctly. All reported they were very satisfied with the counselling, education, support and quality of care they received from providers and FT service efficiency. Almost all (98%) said they would recommend it to other PLHIV. Challenges reported included pill burden (12%) and tolerability (24%), but none had difficulty with phone‐based counselling or wished for additional HF‐based visits.DiscussionUsing FT to deliver 3HP was feasible and acceptable. Some reported tolerability challenges but 98% completed 3HP, and all appreciated the efficiency of aligning TPT and HIV HF visits, multi‐month dispensing and phone‐based counselling.ConclusionsScaling up this approach could expand TPT coverage in Zimbabwe.

AbstractIntroductionScreening of modifiable cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors is recommended but not routinely provided for HIV‐infected patients, especially in low‐resource settings. Potential concerns include limited staff time and low patient acceptability, but little empirical data exists. As part of a pilot study of screening in a large urban HIV clinic in Swaziland, we conducted a time‐motion study to assess the impact of screening on patient flow and HIV service delivery and exit interviews to assess patient acceptability.MethodsA convenience sample of patients ≥40 years of age attending routine HIV clinic visits was screened for hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia and tobacco smoking. We observed HIV visits with and without screening and measured time spent on HIV and CVD risk factor screening activities. We compared screened and unscreened patients on total visit time and time spent receiving HIV services using Wilcoxon rank‐sum tests. A separate convenience sample of screened patients participated in exit interviews to assess their satisfaction with screening.ResultsWe observed 172 patient visits (122 with CVD risk factor screening and 50 without). Screening increased total visit time from a median (range) of 4 minutes (2 to 11) to 15 minutes (9 to 30) (p < 0.01). Time spent on HIV care was not affected: 4 (2 to 10) versus 4 (2 to 11) (p = 0.57). We recruited 126 patients for exit interviews, all of whom indicated that they would recommend screening to others.ConclusionProvision of CVD risk factor screening more than tripled the length of routine HIV clinic visits but did not reduce the time spent on HIV services. Programme managers need to take longer visit duration into account in order to effectively integrate CVD risk factor screening and counselling into HIV programmes.

AbstractIntroductionThe World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendation of "Treat All" has accelerated the call for differentiated antiretroviral therapy (ART) delivery, a method of care that efficiently uses limited resources to increase access to HIV treatment. WHO has further recommended that stable individuals on ART receive refills every 3 to 6 months and attend clinical visits every 3 to 6 months. However, there is not yet consensus on how to ensure that the quality of services is maintained as countries strive to meet these standards. This commentary responds to this gap by defining a pragmatic approach to the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the scale up of differentiated ART delivery for global and national stakeholders.DiscussionProgramme managers need to demonstrate that the scale up of differentiated ART delivery is achieving the desired effectiveness and efficiency outcomes to justify continued support by national and global stakeholders. To achieve this goal, the two existing global WHO HIV treatment indicators of ART retention and viral suppression should be augmented with two broad aggregate measures. The addition of indicators measuring the frequency of (1) clinical and (2) refill visits by PLHIV per year will allow evaluation of the pace of scale up while monitoring its overall effect on the quality and efficiency of services. The combination of these four routinely collected aggregate indicators will also facilitate the comparison of outcomes among facilities, regions or countries implementing different models of ART delivery. Enhanced monitoring or additional assessments will be required to answer other critical questions on the process of implementation, acceptability, effectiveness and efficiency.ConclusionsThese proposed outcomes are useful markers for the effectiveness and efficiency of the health system's attempts to deliver quality treatment to those who need it—and still reserve as much of the available resource pool as possible for other key elements of the HIV response.

Noncommunicable diseases (NCD) are the leading causes of death and disability worldwide but have received suboptimal attention and funding from the global health community. Although the first United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) for NCD in 2011 aimed to stimulate donor funding and political action, only 1.3% of official development assistance for health was allocated to NCD in 2015, even less than in 2011. In stark contrast, the UNGASS on human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) in 2001 sparked billions of dollars in funding for HIV and enabled millions of HIV-infected individuals to access antiretroviral treatment. Using an existing analytic framework, we compare the global responses to the HIV and NCD epidemics and distill lessons from the HIV response that might be utilized to enhance the global NCD response. These include: 1) further educating and empowering communities and patients to increase demand for NCD services and to hold national governments accountable for establishing and achieving NCD targets; and 2) evidence to support the feasibility and effectiveness of large-scale NCD screening and treatment programs in low-resource settings. We conclude with a case study from Swaziland, a country that is making progress in confronting both HIV and NCD.HighlightsNoncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are leading causes of global deaths but receive negligible global health funding, unlike HIV.A political priority framework setting helps explain different global responses to NCDs and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).Successful scale-up of chronic HIV care can serve as a model to inform national-level NCD programs.NCD prevention and management requires input and demand from affected communities and patients.A Swaziland case study demonstrates early success in adapting HIV systems and tools for NCD care.