Dataset Information

The effect of tracer contact on return to care among adult, "lost to follow-up" patients living with HIV in Zambia: an instrumental variable analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Tracing patients lost to follow-up (LTFU) from HIV care is widely practiced, yet we have little knowledge of its causal effect on care engagement. In a prospective, Zambian cohort, we examined the effect of tracing on return to care within 2 years of LTFU.

Methods

We traced a stratified, random sample of LTFU patients who had received HIV care between August 2013 and July 2015. LTFU was defined as a gap of >90 days from last scheduled appointment in the routine electronic medical record. Extracting 2 years of follow-up visit data through 2017, we identified patients who returned. Using random selection for tracing as an instrumental variable (IV), we used conditional two-stage least squares regression to estimate the local average treatment effect of tracer contact on return. We examined the observational association between tracer contact and return among patient sub-groups self-confirmed as disengaged from care.

Results

Of the 24,164 LTFU patients enumerated, 4380 were randomly selected for tracing and 1158 were contacted by a tracer within a median of 14.8 months post-loss. IV analysis found that patients contacted by a tracer because they were randomized to tracing were no more likely to return than those not contacted (adjusted risk difference [aRD]: 3%, 95% CI: -2%, 8%, p = 0.23). Observational data showed that among contacted, disengaged patients, the rate of return was higher in the week following tracer contact (IR 5.74, 95% CI: 3.78-8.71) than in the 2 weeks to 1-month post-contact (IR 2.28, 95% CI: 1.40-3.72). There was a greater effect of tracing among patients lost for >6 months compared to those contacted within 3 months of loss.

Conclusions

Overall, tracer contact did not causally increase LTFU patient return to HIV care, demonstrating the limited impact of tracing in this program, where contact occurred months after patients were LTFU. However, observational data suggest that tracing may speed return among some LTFU patients genuinely out-of-care. Further studies may improve tracing effectiveness by examining the mechanisms underlying the impact of tracing on return to care, the effect of tracing at different times-since-loss and using more accurate identification of patients who are truly disengaged to target tracing.

SUBMITTER: Beres LK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8683971 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Long-term outcome studies are frequently hindered by a decreasing frequency of patient follow-up with the treating surgeon over time. Whether this attrition represents a "loss of faith" in their index surgeon or the realities of a geographically mobile society has never been assessed in a population of patients undergoing spinal surgery. The purpose of this article is to determine the frequency with which patients who have undergone prior surgery and develop new problems attempt to follow-up with their index spine surgeon. The study design was a population survey. All patients seen at two university-based spine centers over a 3-month period were surveyed regarding prior spine surgery. The questionnaire asked details of the previous operation, whether the patient had sought follow-up with their index surgeon, why the patient did not continue treatment with that surgeon, and whether the patient was satisfied with their prior treatment. Sixty-nine patients completed the survey. Prior operations were lumbar (53 patients) and cervical (16). When asked the reason for not seeing their prior surgeon, 10 patients (15%) stated that they (the patient) had moved and 16 (23%) responded that their surgeon no longer practiced in the area. Thirteen (19%) were unhappy with their previous care, 22 (32%) were seeking a second opinion, and 7 (10%) were told they needed more complex surgery. Thirty-seven (54%) discussed their symptoms with their original surgeon before seeking another surgeon. Although 32 patients (46%) had not discussed their new complaints with their index surgeon, only 3 patients (4%) chose not to return to their prior surgeon despite having the opportunity to do so. Forty-nine patients (71%) were satisfied with their prior surgical care, and 42 patients (61%) would undergo the index operation again. Most of the patients seen at the authors' practices after undergoing prior spine surgery elsewhere failed to follow up with their prior spine surgeon for geographical reasons. It appears that the majority of patients who develop new spinal complaints will seek out their treating surgeon when possible. This suggests that patient attrition over long-term follow-up may reflect a geographically mobile population rather than patient dissatisfaction with prior treatment.

Project description:BackgroundIncomplete ascertainment of outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is likely to bias final study results if reasons for unavailability of patient data are associated with the outcome of interest. The primary objective of this study is to assess the potential impact of loss to follow-up on the estimates of treatment effect. The secondary objectives are to describe, for published RCTs, (1) the reporting of loss to follow-up information, (2) the analytic methods used for handling loss to follow-up information, and (3) the extent of reported loss to follow-up.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review of reports of RCTs recently published in five top general medical journals. Eligible RCTs will demonstrate statistically significant effect estimates with respect to primary outcomes that are patient-important and expressed as binary data. Teams of 2 reviewers will independently determine eligibility and extract relevant information from each eligible trial using standardized, pre-piloted forms. To assess the potential impact of loss to follow-up on the estimates of treatment effect we will, for varying assumptions about the outcomes of participants lost to follow-up (LTFU), calculate (1) the percentage of RCTs that lose statistical significance and (2) the mean change in effect estimate across RCTs. The different assumptions we will test are the following: (1) none of the LTFU participants had the event; (2) all LTFU participants had the event; (3) all LTFU participants in the treatment group had the event; none of those in the control group had it (worst case scenario); (4) the event incidence among LTFU participants (relative to observed participants) increased, with a higher relative increase in the intervention group; and (5) the event incidence among LTFU participants (relative to observed participants) increased in the intervention group and decreased in the control group.DiscussionWe aim to make our objectives and methods transparent. The results of this study may have important implications for both clinical trialists and users of the medical literature.

Project description:BackgroundIn public health HIV treatment programs in Africa, long-term retention remains a challenge. A number of improvement strategies exist (e.g., bring services closer to home, reduce visit frequency, expand hours of clinic operation, improve provider attitude), but implementers lack data about which to prioritize when resource constraints preclude implementing all. We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to quantify preferences for a number of potential clinic improvements to enhance retention.Methods and findingsWe sought a random sample of HIV patients who were lost to follow-up (defined as >90 days late for their last scheduled appointment) from treatment facilities in Lusaka Province, Zambia. Among those contacted, we asked patients to choose between 2 hypothetical clinics in which the following 5 attributes of those facilities were varied: waiting time at the clinic (1, 3, or 5 hours), distance from residence to clinic (5, 10, or 20 km), ART supply given at each refill (1, 3, or 5 months), hours of operation (morning only, morning and afternoon, or morning and Saturday), and staff attitude ("rude" or "nice"). We used mixed-effects logistic regression to estimate relative utility (i.e., preference) for each attribute level. We calculated how much additional waiting time or travel distance patients were willing to accept in order to obtain other desired features of care. Between December 9, 2015 and May 31, 2016, we offered the survey to 385 patients, and 280 participated (average age 35; 60% female). Patients exhibited a strong preference for nice as opposed to rude providers (relative utility of 2.66; 95% CI 1.9-3.42; p < 0.001). In a standard willingness to wait or willingness to travel analysis, patients were willing to wait 19 hours more or travel 45 km farther to see nice rather than rude providers. An alternative analysis, in which trade-offs were constrained to values actually posed to patients in the experiment, suggested that patients were willing to accept a facility located 10 km from home (as opposed to 5) that required 5 hours of waiting per visit (as opposed to 1 hour) and that dispensed 3 months of medications (instead of 5) in order to access nice (as opposed to rude) providers. This study was limited by the fact that attributes included in the experiment may not have captured additional important determinants of preference.ConclusionsIn this study, patients were willing to expend considerable time and effort as well as accept substantial inconvenience in order to access providers with a nice attitude. In addition to service delivery redesign (e.g., differentiated service delivery models), current improvement strategies should also prioritize improving provider attitude and promoting patient centeredness-an area of limited policy attention to date.