4.3 Article

Loss to Follow-Up of Adults in Public HIV Care Systems in Central Mozambique: Identifying Obstacles to Treatment

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3181ab73e2

Keywords

HIV care utilization; HIV treatment; loss to follow-up; resource-limited settings

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health STD/AIDS Research Training [T32 A107140]
  2. Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Operations Research on AIDS Care and Treatment in Africa (ORACTA)
  3. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and Treatment Acceleration Program (TAP) [1440/TAP:HIV-AIDS/MS-DPC/GACOPI/04]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Access to antiretroviral treatment (ART) has expanded dramatically in resource-limited settings. Evaluating loss to follow-up from HIV testing through post-ART care can help identify obstacles to care. Methods: Routine data were analyzed for adults receiving services in 2 Public HIV care systems in central Mozambique. The proportion of people passing through the following steps was determined: (1) HIV testing, (2) enrollment at an ART clinic, (3) CD4 testing, (4) starting ART if eligible, and (5) adhering to ART. Results: During the 12-month study period (2004-2005), an estimated 23,430 adults were tested for HIV and 7005 (29.9%) were HIV positive. Only 3956 (56.5%) of those HIV positive enrolled at an ART clinic <= 30 days after testing. CD4 testing was obtained in 77.1% <= 30 days of enrollment. Of 1506 eligible for ART, 471 (31.3%) started ART <= 90 days after CD4 testing. 017382 with >= 180 days of potential follow-up time oil ART, 317 (83.0%) had pharmacy-based adherence rates >= 90%. Discussion: Substantial drop-offs were observed for each step between HIV testing and treatment but were highest for referral from HIV testing to treatment sites and for starting ART. Interventions are needed to improve follow-up and ensure that people benefit from available HIV services.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available