4.6 Article

Linkage to Care and Treatment for TB and HIV among People Newly Diagnosed with TB or HIV-Associated TB at a Large, Inner City South African Hospital

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049140

关键词

-

资金

  1. United States Agency for International Development (PEPFAR) [674-A-00-08-00007-00]
  2. National Institutes of Health [ICOHRTA AIDS/TB U2RTW007370]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess the outcomes of linkage to TB and HIV care and identify risk factors for poor referral outcomes. Design: Cohort study of TB patients diagnosed at an urban hospital. Methods: Linkage to care was determined by review of clinic files, national death register, and telephone contact, and classified as linked to care, delayed linkage to care (>7 days for TB treatment, >30 days for HIV care), or failed linkage to care. We performed log-binomial regression to identify patient and referral characteristics associated with poor referral outcomes. Results: Among 593 TB patients, 23% failed linkage to TB treatment and 30.3% of the 77.0% who linked to care arrived late. Among 486 (86.9%) HIV-infected TB patients, 38.3% failed linkage to HIV care, and 32% of the 61.7% who linked to care presented late. One in six HIV-infected patients failed linkage to both TB and HIV care. Only 20.2% of HIV-infected patients were referred to a single clinic for integrated care. A referral letter was present in 90.3%, but only 23.7% included HIV status and 18.8% CD4 cell count. Lack of education (RR 1.85) and low CD4 count (CD4 <= 50 vs. >250cells/mm(3); RR 1.66) were associated with failed linkage to TB care. Risk factors for failed linkage to HIV care were antiretroviral-naive status (RR 1.29), and absence of referral letter with HIV or CD4 cell count (RR1.23). Conclusions: Linkage to TB/HIV care should be strengthened by communication of HIV and CD4 results, ART initiation during hospitalization and TB/HIV integration at primary care.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据