4.3 Article

Randomized control trial of peer-delivered, modified directly observed therapy for HAART in Mozambique

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e318153f7ba

Keywords

randomized control trial (RCT); HIV/AIDS; peer support; modified directly observed therapy (mDOT); adherence; HAART; Mozambique

Funding

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [T32 AI07140, P30 AI027757, T32 AI007140] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH058986, R01 MH 58986] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To assess the efficacy of a peer-delivered intervention to promote short-term (6-month) and long-term (12-month) adherence to HAART in a Mozambican clinic population. Design: A 2-arm randomized controlled trial was conducted between October 2004 and June 2006. Participants: Of 350 men and women (>= 18 years) initiating HAART, 53.7% were female, and 97% were on 1 fixed-dose combination pill twice a day. Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned to receive 6 weeks (Monday through Friday; 30 daily visits) of peer-delivered, modified directly observed therapy (mDOT) or standard care. Peers provided education about treatment and adherence and sought to identify and mitigate adherence barriers. Outcome: Participants' self-reported medication adherence was assessed 6 months and 12 months after starting HAART. Adherence was defined as the proportion of prescribed doses taken over the previous 7 days. Statistical analyses were performed using intention-to-treat (missing = failure). Results: Intervention participants, compared to those in standard care, showed significantly higher mean medication adherence at 6 months (92.7% vs. 84.9%, difference 7.8, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.0.02, 13.0) and 12 months (94.4% vs. 87.7%, difference 6.8, 95% CI: 0.9, 12.9). There were no between-arm differences in chartabstracted CD4 counts.

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