Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30024874›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Patient and health worker experiences of differentiated models of care for stable HIV patients in Malawi: A qualitative study.

Margaret L Prust, Clement K Banda, Katie Callahan, Rose Nyirenda, Frank Chimbwandira, Thokozani Kalua, Michael Eliya, Peter Ehrenkranz, Marta Prescott, Elizabeth McCarthy and 2 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors.

Margaret L PrustApplied Analytics Team, Clinton Health Access Initiative, Inc., Boston, MA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6595-9237
Clement K BandaClinton Health Access Initiative, Inc., Lilongwe, Malawi.
Katie CallahanHIV, TB and Health Financing Team, Clinton Health Access Initiative, Inc., New York, NY, United States of America.
Rose NyirendaDepartment of HIV and AIDS, Ministry of Health, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Frank ChimbwandiraDepartment of HIV and AIDS, Ministry of Health, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Thokozani KaluaDepartment of HIV and AIDS, Ministry of Health, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Michael EliyaDepartment of HIV and AIDS, Ministry of Health, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Peter EhrenkranzBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
Marta PrescottApplied Analytics Team, Clinton Health Access Initiative, Inc., Boston, MA, United States of America.
Elizabeth McCarthyApplied Analytics Team, Clinton Health Access Initiative, Inc., Boston, MA, United States of America.
Elya TagarHIV, TB and Health Financing Team, Clinton Health Access Initiative, Inc., New York, NY, United States of America.
Andrews GundaClinton Health Access Initiative, Inc., Lilongwe, Malawi.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSeveral models of differentiated care for stable HIV patients on antiretroviral therapy (ART) in Malawi have been introduced to ensure that care is efficient and patient-centered. Three models have been prioritized by the government for a deeper and broader understanding: adjusted appointment spacing through multi-month scripting (MMS); fast-track drug refills (FTRs) on alternating visits; and community ART groups (CAGs) where rotating group members collect medications at the facility for all members. This qualitative study aimed to understand the challenges and successes of implementing these models of care and of the process of patient differentiation.

methodsA qualitative study was conducted as a part of a broader process evaluation in 30 purposefully selected ART facilities between February and May 2016. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 32 health workers that managed and coordinated ART clinics and 30 focus groups were held with 216 ART patients. Interviews and focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed, and coded thematically.

resultsParticipants reported that the models of differentiated care have yielded key benefits, including: reduced patients' travel and visit time, decongestion of facilities, and enhanced social support. Participants suggested that these benefits could lead to improved HIV treatment outcomes for patients. At the same time, some challenges were reported, such as inconsistent stocks of drugs, which can inhibit implementation of MMS. For CAGs, the group-based nature of the model presented some unique problems, such as conflicts within groups or concerns about privacy. Health workers also described some of the reasons why eligible patients may not receive the models or conversely why ineligible patients sometimes get the models.

conclusionsDocumenting patient and health worker perspectives on models of differentiated care is critical to understanding and improving these models. While these models can offer important benefits, the models may not be appropriate for all sites or patients, and patient status and needs may change over time. Key challenges should be recognized and addressed for optimal utilization of the models.

Indexed as

Models, OrganizationalAdultAnti-HIV AgentsAntiretroviral Therapy, Highly ActiveDelivery of Health CareFemaleFocus GroupsHealth PersonnelHIV InfectionsHumansMalawiMaleMiddle AgedOutpatientsPatient SatisfactionPrescription Drug Monitoring ProgramsAnti-HIV Agents

Identifiers

PMID30024874
PMCPMC6053133

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.