ArticleAIDS care2018
Evaluation of a computer-based and counseling support intervention to improve HIV patients' viral loads.
Article in AIDS care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We sought to integrate a brief computer and counseling support intervention into the routine practices of HIV clinics and evaluate effects on patients' viral loads. The project targeted HIV patients in care whose viral loads exceeded 1000 copies/ml at the time of recruitment. Three HIV clinics initiated the intervention immediately, and three other HIV clinics delayed onset for 16 months and served as concurrent controls for evaluating outcomes. The intervention components included a brief computer-based intervention (CBI) focused on antiretroviral therapy adherence; health coaching from project counselors for participants whose viral loads did not improve after doing the CBI; and behavioral screening and palm cards with empowering messages available to all patients at intervention clinics regardless of viral load level. The analytic cohort included 982 patients at intervention clinics and 946 patients at control clinics. Viral loads were assessed at 270 days before recruitment, at time of recruitment, and +270 days later. Results indicated that both the control and intervention groups had significant reductions in viral load, ending with approximately the same viral level at +270 days. There was no evidence that the CBI or the targeted health coaching was responsible for the viral reduction in the intervention group. Results may stem partially from statistical regression to the mean in both groups. Also, clinical providers at control and intervention clinics may have taken action (e.g., conversations with patients, referrals to case managers, adherence counselors, mental health, substance use specialists) to help their patients reduce their viral loads. In conclusion, neither a brief computer-based nor targeted health coaching intervention reduced patients' viral loads beyond levels achieved with standard of care services available to patients at well-resourced HIV clinics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.