Dataset Information

Implementation of "Treat-all" at adult HIV care and treatment sites in the Global IeDEA Consortium: results from the Site Assessment Survey.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Since 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended that all people living with HIV (PLHIV) initiate antiretroviral treatment (ART), irrespective of CD4+ count or clinical stage. National adoption of universal treatment has accelerated since WHO's 2015 "Treat All" recommendation; however, little is known about the translation of this guidance into practice. This study aimed to assess the status of Treat All implementation across regions, countries, and levels of the health care delivery system. METHODS:Between June and December 2017, 201/221 (91%) adult HIV treatment sites that participate in the global IeDEA research consortium completed a survey on capacity and practices related to HIV care. Located in 41 countries across seven geographic regions, sites provided information on the status and timing of site-level introduction of Treat All, as well as site-level practices related to ART initiation. RESULTS:Almost all sites (93%) reported that they had begun implementing Treat All, and there were no statistically significant differences in site-level Treat All introduction by health facility type, urban/rural location, sector (public/private) or country income level. The median time between national policy adoption and site-level introduction was one month. In countries where Treat All was not yet adopted in national guidelines, 69% of sites reported initiating all patients on ART, regardless of clinical criteria, and these sites had been implementing Treat All for a median period of seven months at the time of the survey. The majority of sites (77%) reported typically initiating patients on ART within 14 days of confirming diagnosis, with 60% to 62% of sites implementing Treat All in East, Southern and West Africa reporting same-day ART initiation for most patients. CONCLUSIONS:By mid- to late-2017, the Treat All strategy was the standard of care at almost all IeDEA sites, including rural, primary-level health facilities in low-resource settings. While further assessments of site-level capacity to provide high-quality HIV care under Treat All and to support sustained viral suppression after ART initiation are needed, the widespread introduction of Treat All at the service delivery level is a critical step towards global targets for ending the HIV epidemic as a public health threat.

SUBMITTER: Brazier E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6625339 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implementation of "Treat-all" at adult HIV care and treatment sites in the Global IeDEA Consortium: results from the Site Assessment Survey.

Brazier Ellen E Maruri Fernanda F Duda Stephany N SN Tymejczyk Olga O Wester C William CW Somi Geoffrey G Ross Jeremy J Freeman Aimee A Cornell Morna M Poda Armel A Musick Beverly S BS Zhang Fujie F Althoff Keri N KN Mugglin Catrina C Kimmel April D AD Yotebieng Marcel M Nash Denis D

Journal of the International AIDS Society 20190701 7

<h4>Introduction</h4>Since 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended that all people living with HIV (PLHIV) initiate antiretroviral treatment (ART), irrespective of CD4+ count or clinical stage. National adoption of universal treatment has accelerated since WHO's 2015 "Treat All" recommendation; however, little is known about the translation of this guidance into practice. This study aimed to assess the status of Treat All implementation across regions, countries, and levels of ...[more]

PMID: 31623428

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAn important determinant of the effectiveness of HIV treatment programs is the capacity of sites to implement recommended services and identify systematic changes needed to ensure that invested resources translate into improved patient outcomes. We conducted a survey in 2014 of HIV care and treatment sites in the seven regions of the International epidemiologic Database to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) Consortium to evaluate facility characteristics, HIV prevention, care and treatment services provided, laboratory capacity, and trends in the comprehensiveness of care compared to data obtained in the 2009 baseline survey.MethodsClinical staff from 262 treatment sites in 45 countries in IeDEA completed a site survey from September 2014 to January 2015, including Asia-Pacific with Australia (n = 50), Latin America and the Caribbean (n = 11), North America (n = 45), Central Africa (n = 17), East Africa (n = 36), Southern Africa (n = 87), and West Africa (n = 16). For the 55 sites with complete data from both the 2009 and 2014 survey, we evaluated change in comprehensiveness of care.ResultsThe majority of the 262 sites (61%) offered seven essential services (ART adherence, nutritional support, PMTCT, CD4+ cell count testing, tuberculosis screening, HIV prevention, and outreach). Sites that were publicly funded (64%), cared for adults and children (68%), low or middle Human Development Index (HDI) rank (68%, 68%), and received PEPFAR support (71%) were most often fully comprehensive. CD4+ cell count testing was universally available (98%) but only 62% of clinics offered it onsite. Approximately two-thirds (69%) of sites reported routine viral load testing (44-100%), with 39% having it onsite. Laboratory capacity to monitor antiretroviral-related toxicity and diagnose opportunistic infections varied widely by testing modality and region. In the subgroup of 55 sites with two surveys, comprehensiveness of services provided significantly increased across all regions from 2009 to 2014 (5.7 to 6.5, p < 0.001).ConclusionThe availability of viral load monitoring remains suboptimal and should be a focus for site capacity, particularly in East and Southern Africa, where the majority of those initiating on ART reside. However, the comprehensiveness of care provided increased over the past 5 years and was related to type of funding received (publicly funded and PEPFAR supported).

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess access children with HIV have to comprehensive HIV care services, to longitudinally evaluate the implementation and scale-up of services, and to use site services and clinical cohort data to explore whether access to these services influences retention in care.MethodsA cross-sectional standardised survey was completed in 2014-2015 by sites providing paediatric HIV care across regions of the International Epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) consortium. We developed a comprehensiveness score based on the WHO's nine categories of essential services to categorise sites as 'low' (0-5), 'medium', (6-7) or 'high' (8-9). When available, comprehensiveness scores were compared with scores from a 2009 survey. We used patient-level data with site services to investigate the relationship between the comprehensiveness of services and retention.ResultsSurvey data from 174 IeDEA sites in 32 countries were analysed. Of the WHO essential services, sites were most likely to offer antiretroviral therapy (ART) provision and counselling (n=173; 99%), co-trimoxazole prophylaxis (168; 97%), prevention of perinatal transmission services (167; 96%), outreach for patient engagement and follow-up (166; 95%), CD4 cell count testing (126; 88%), tuberculosis screening (151; 87%) and select immunisation services (126; 72%). Sites were less likely to offer nutrition/food support (97; 56%), viral load testing (99; 69%) and HIV counselling and testing (69; 40%). 10% of sites rated 'low', 59% 'medium' and 31% 'high' in the comprehensiveness score. The mean comprehensiveness of services score increased significantly from 5.6 in 2009 to 7.3 in 2014 (p<0.001; n=30). Patient-level analysis of lost to follow-up after ART initiation estimated the hazard was highest in sites rated 'low' and lowest in sites rated 'high'.ConclusionThis global assessment suggests the potential care impact of scaling-up and sustaining comprehensive paediatric HIV services. Meeting recommendations for comprehensive HIV services should remain a global priority.

Project description:BackgroundSubstance use is common among people living with HIV and has been associated with suboptimal HIV treatment outcomes. Integrating substance use services into HIV care is a promising strategy to improve patient outcomes.MethodsWe report on substance use education, screening, and referral practices from two surveys of HIV care and treatment sites participating in the International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) consortium. HIV care and treatment sites participating in IeDEA are primarily public-sector health facilities and include both academic and community-based hospitals and health facilities. A total of 286 sites in 45 countries participated in the 2014-2015 survey and 237 sites in 44 countries participated in the 2017 survey. We compared changes over time for 147 sites that participated in both surveys.ResultsIn 2014-2015, most sites (75%) reported providing substance use-related education on-site (i.e., at the HIV clinic or the same health facility). Approximately half reported on-site screening for substance use (52%) or referrals for substance use treatment (51%). In 2017, the proportion of sites providing on-site substance use-related education, screening, or referrals increased by 9%, 16%, and 8%, respectively. In 2017, on-site substance use screening and referral were most commonly reported at sites serving only adults (compared to only children/adolescents or adults and children/adolescents; screening: 86%, 37%, and 59%, respectively; referral: 76%, 47%, and 46%, respectively) and at sites in high-income countries (compared to upper middle income, lower middle income or low-income countries; screening: 89%, 76%, 68%, and 45%, respectively; referral: 82%, 71%, 57%, and 34%, respectively).ConclusionAlthough there have been increases in the proportion of sites reporting substance use education, screening, and referral services across IeDEA sites, gaps persist in the integration of substance use services into HIV care, particularly in relation to screening and referral practices, with reduced availability for children/adolescents and those receiving care within resource-constrained settings.

Project description:Background:Training of spine surgeons may impact the availability of contemporary minimally invasive spinal surgery (MIS) to patients and drive spine surgeons' clinical decision-making when applying minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques (MISST) to the treatment of common degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. Training requirements and implementation of privileges vary in different parts of the world. The purpose of this study was to analyze the training in relation to practice patterns of surgeons who perform lumbar endoscopic spinal surgery the world over. Methods:The authors solicited responses to an online survey sent to spine surgeons by email, and chat groups in social media networks including Facebook, WeChat, WhatsApp, and Linkedin. Surgeons were asked the following questions: (I) please indicate your training? (II) What type of MISST spinal surgery do you perform? (III) How would you rate your experience in MIS lumbar spinal surgery and what percentage of your practice is MISST? And (IV) which avenue did you use to train for the MISST you currently employ in your clinical practice today? Descriptive statistics were applied to count responses and cross-tabulated them to the surgeon's training. Pearson Chi-square measures, kappa statistics, and linear regression analysis of agreement or disagreement were performed by analyzing the distribution of variances using statistical package SPSS version 25.0. Results:A total of 430 surgeons accessed the survey. The completion rate was 67.4%. Analyzing the responses of 292 surveys submitted by 97 neurosurgeons (33.2%), 161 orthopaedic surgeons (55.1%), and 34 surgeons of other postgraduate training (11.6%) showed that only 14% (41/292) of surgeons had completed a fellowship. Surgeons rated their skill level 33.5% of the time as master and experienced surgeon, and 35.6% of the time as novice or surgeon with some experience. There were more master (64.6% versus 29.2%) and experienced (52% versus 40%) surgeons amongst orthopaedic surgeons than amongst neurosurgeons at a statistically significant level (P=0.11). There were near twice as many orthopaedic surgeons (54.3%) using endoscopic procedures in the lumbar spine as their favorite MISST than neurosurgeons (35.4%; P=0.096). Endoscopic spine surgeons' main sources of knowledge acquisition were (I) learning in small meetings (57.3%), (II) attending workshops (63.1%), and (III) national and international conferences (59.8%). Conclusions:The majority of spine surgeons reported more than half of their cases employing MISST at a high skill level. Very few MISST surgeons are fellowship trained but attend workshops and various meetings suggesting that many of them are self-thought. Orthopaedic surgeons were more likely to implement endoscopic spinal surgery into the routine clinical practice. As endoscopic spine surgery gains more traction and patient demand, minimal adequate training will be part of the ongoing debate.

Project description:IntroductionIntegration of services to screen and manage mental health and substance use disorders (MSDs) into HIV care settings has been identified as a promising strategy to improve mental health and HIV treatment outcomes among people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Data on the extent to which HIV treatment sites in LMICs screen and manage MSDs are limited. The objective of this study was to assess practices for screening and treatment of MSDs at HIV clinics in LMICs participating in the International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) consortium.MethodsWe surveyed a stratified random sample of 95 HIV clinics in 29 LMICs in the Caribbean, Central and South America, Asia-Pacific and sub-Saharan Africa. The survey captured information onsite characteristics and screening and treatment practices for depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance use disorders (SUDs) and other mental health disorders.ResultsMost sites (n = 76, 80%) were in urban areas. Mental health screening varied by disorder: 57% of sites surveyed screened for depression, 19% for PTSD, 55% for SUDs and 29% for other mental health disorders. Depression, PTSD, SUDs and other mental health disorders were reported as managed on site (having services provided at the HIV clinic or same health facility) at 70%, 51%, 41% and 47% of sites respectively. Combined availability of screening and on-site management of depression, PTSD, and SUDs, and other mental health disorders was reported by 42%, 14%, 26% and 19% of sites, respectively. On-site management of depression and PTSD was reported significantly less often in rural as compared to urban settings (depression: 33% and 78% respectively; PTSD: 24% and 58% respectively). Screening for depression and SUDs was least commonly reported by HIV programmes that treated only children as compared to HIV programmes that treated only adults or treated both adults and children.ConclusionsSignificant gaps exist in the management of MSDs in HIV care settings in LMICs, particularly in rural settings. Identification and evaluation of optimal implementation strategies to scale and sustain integrated MSDs and HIV care is needed.

Project description:BackgroundSurgical site infections (SSI) complicate up to 40% of surgical procedures, leading to increased patient morbidity and mortality. Previous research identified disparities in SSI prevention guidelines and clinical practices across different institutions. The study aims to identify variations in SSI prevention practices within and between specialties and financial systems and provide a representation of existing SSI preventative measures to help improve the standardization of SSI prevention practices.MethodsThis collaborative cross-sectional survey will be aimed at pan-surgical specialties internationally. The study has been designed and will be reported in line with the CROSS and CHERRIES standards. An international study steering committee will design and internally validate the survey in multiple consensus-based rounds. This will be based on SSI prevention measures outlined in the CDC (2017), WHO (2018), NICE (2019), Wounds UK (2020) and the International Surgical Wound Complications Advisory Panel (ISWCAP) guidelines. The questionnaire will include demographics, SSI surveillance, preoperative, peri-operative and postoperative SSI prevention. Data will be collected on participants' surgical specialty, operative grade, of practice and financial healthcare system of practice. The online survey will be designed and disseminated using QualtricsXM Platform™ through national and international surgical colleges and societies, in addition to social media and snowballing. Data collection will be open for 3 months with reminders, and raking will be used to ascertain the sample. Responses will be analyzed, and the chi-square test used to evaluate the impact of SSI prevention variables on responses.DiscussionCurrent SSI prevention practice in UK Vascular surgery varies considerably, with little consensus on many measures. Given the inconsistency in guidelines on how to prevent SSIs, there is a need for standardization. This survey will investigate the disparity in SSI preventative measures between different surgical fields and countries.

Dataset Information

Implementation of "Treat-all" at adult HIV care and treatment sites in the Global IeDEA Consortium: results from the Site Assessment Survey.

Publications

Implementation of "Treat-all" at adult HIV care and treatment sites in the Global IeDEA Consortium: results from the Site Assessment Survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets