4.3 Article

Achieving Core Indicators for HIV Clinical Care Among New Patients at an Urban HIV Clinic

期刊

AIDS PATIENT CARE AND STDS
卷 29, 期 9, 页码 474-480

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/apc.2015.0028

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Following the release of the 2010 National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued core clinical indicators for measuring health outcomes in HIV-positive persons. As early retention in HIV primary care is associated with improved long-term health outcomes, we employed IOM indicators as a guide to examine a cohort of persons initiating HIV outpatient medical care at a university-affiliated HIV clinic in the Southern United States (January 2007-July 2012). Using indicators for visit attendance, CD4 and viral load laboratory testing frequency, and antiretroviral therapy initiation, we evaluated factors associated with achieving IOM core indicators among care- and treatment-naive patients during the first year of HIV care. Of 448 patients (mean age = 35 years, 35.7% white, 79.0% male, 58.4% education beyond high school, 35.9% monthly income > $1,000 US, 47.3% uninsured), 84.6% achieved at least four of five IOM indicators. In multivariable analyses, persons with monthly income > $1,000 (ORadj. = 3.71; 95% CI: 1.68-8.19; p = 0.001) and depressive symptoms (ORadj. = 2.13; 95% CI: 1.02-4.45; p = 0.04) were significantly more likely to achieve at least four of the five core indicators, while patients with anxiety symptoms were significantly less likely to achieve these indicators (ORadj. = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.26-0.97; p = 0.04). Age, sex, race, education, insurance status, transportation barriers, alcohol use, and HIV status disclosure to family were not associated with achieving core indicators. Evaluating and addressing financial barriers and anxiety symptoms during the first year of HIV outpatient care may improve individual health outcomes and subsequent achievement of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy.

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

4.3
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