4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Peer Support and Pager Messaging to Promote Antiretroviral Modifying Therapy in Seattle: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3181b9300c

Keywords

adherence; HIV/AIDS; HAART; pager; peers; social support

Funding

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [P30 AI 27757, P30 AI027757] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH058986, R01 MH58986, R01 MH058986-09] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine the relative efficacy of peer support and pager messaging strategies versus usual care to improve medication adherence and clinical outcomes among HIV-positive outpatients initiating or switching to a new highly active antiretroviral therapy regimen. Design: A 2 x 2 factorial randomized controlled trial of a 3-month intervention with computer-assisted self-interviews and blood draws administered at baseline, 3, 6, and 9 months. Methods: HIV-positive patients at a public HIV specialty clinic in Seattle, WA (N = 224) were randomly assigned to peer support, pager messaging, both strategies, or usual care. The main Outcomes were adherence according to self-report and electronic drug monitoring, CD4 count, and HIV-1 RNA viral load. Results: Intent-to-treat analyses suggested the peer intervention was associated with greater self-reported adherence at immediate postintervention. However, these effects were not maintained at follow-up assessment; nor were there significant differences in biological outcomes. The pager intervention, on the other hand, was not associated with greater adherence but was associated with improved biological outcomes at postintervention that were sustained at follow-up. Conclusions: Analyses indicate the potential efficacy of peer support and pager messaging to promote antiretroviral adherence and biological outcomes, respectively. More potent strategies still are needed.

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