Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22304657›Full record

ArticleAIDS care2012

Decision maker priorities for providing antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected South Africans: a qualitative assessment.

April D Kimmel, Norman Daniels, Theresa S Betancourt, Robin Wood, Lisa A Prosser

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AIDS care, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

April D KimmelDepartment of Healthcare Policy and Research, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, USA. adkimmel@vcu.edu
Norman Daniels
Theresa S Betancourt
Robin Wood
Lisa A Prosser
Boston University · USHarvard Global Health Institute · USHarvard University · USUniversity of Cape Town · ZAVirginia Commonwealth University · US

Funding

Optimizing HIV Care in Less Developed CountriesR01AI058736 · NIAID · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI Kenneth Alan Freedberg, Emily Parker Hyle · 2004 to 2026
$21.5M
TUBERCULOSIS INTERNATIONAL TRAINING AND RESEARCH PROGRAMD43TW000018 · FIC · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI JOHNSON, WARREN DOUGLAS · 1988 to 2012
$16.1M
PROGRAM FOR AIDS CLINICAL RESEARCH TRAINING (PACRT)T32AI007433 · NIAID · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI MARK J SIEDNER · 1992 to 2026
$11.4M
Making Better Decisions: Policy Modeling for AIDS and Drug AbuseR01DA015612 · NIDA · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI OWENS, DOUGLAS K · 2002 to 2017
$9.4M
FIC NIH HHS D43 TW000018NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI058736NIAID NIH HHS T32 AI007433NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA015612
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In resource-limited settings, successful HIV treatment scale-up has been tempered by reports of funding shortfalls. We aimed to determine the priorities, including ethical considerations, of decision makers for HIV antiretroviral programs. We conducted qualitative interviews with 12 decision makers, identified using purposive sampling. Respondents engaged in one-on-one, semi-structured interviews. We developed an interview guide to direct questions about key priorities and motivations for decision making about HIV antiretroviral programs. We evaluated textual data from the interviews to identify themes. Among 12 respondents, 10 (83%) lived and worked in South Africa. Respondents came from Western Cape, Gauteng, and KwaZulu-Natal provinces and worked primarily in urban settings. The respondents supported prioritizing individual patients based on treatment adherence, pregnancy status to prevent maternal-to-child HIV transmission and/or orphans, and severity of illness. However, priorities based on severity of illness varied, with first-come/first-serve, prioritization of the most severely ill, and prioritization of the least severely ill discussed. Respondents opposed prioritizing based on patient socioeconomic characteristics. Other priorities included the number of persons receiving treatment; how treated patients are distributed in the population (e.g., urban/rural); and treatment policy (e.g., number of antiretroviral regimens). Motivations included humanitarian concerns; personal responsibility for individual patients; and clinical outcomes (e.g., patient-level morbidity/mortality, saving lives) and/or social outcomes (e.g., restoring patients as functional family members). Decision makers have a wide range of priorities for antiretroviral provision in South Africa, and the motivations underlying these priorities suggest at times conflicting ethical considerations for providing HIV treatment when resources are limited.

Indexed as

Decision MakingHealth PrioritiesAnti-HIV AgentsFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth Services AccessibilityHIV SeropositivityHumansInfectious Disease Transmission, VerticalMaleMotivationPolicy MakingPregnancyQualitative ResearchSouth AfricaAnti-HIV Agents

Identifiers

PMID22304657
PMCPMC3352983
OpenAlexW2094341980

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.