Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31454178›Full record

ArticleJournal of the International AIDS Society2019

The rollout of Community ART Refill Groups in Zimbabwe: a qualitative evaluation.

Aaron F Bochner, Elizabeth Meacham, Nathan Mhungu, Phibion Manyanga, Frances Petracca, Claudios Muserere, Gloria Gonese, Batsirai Makunike, Blessing Wazara, Clorata Gwanzura and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the International AIDS Society, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  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

15 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Aaron F BochnerInternational Training and Education Center for Health (I-TECH), Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8348-3375
Elizabeth MeachamInternational Training and Education Center for Health (I-TECH), Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Nathan MhunguInternational Training and Education Center for Health (I-TECH), Harare, Zimbabwe.
Phibion ManyangaInternational Training and Education Center for Health (I-TECH), Harare, Zimbabwe.
Frances PetraccaInternational Training and Education Center for Health (I-TECH), Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Claudios MuserereInternational Training and Education Center for Health (I-TECH), Harare, Zimbabwe.
Gloria GoneseInternational Training and Education Center for Health (I-TECH), Harare, Zimbabwe.
Batsirai MakunikeInternational Training and Education Center for Health (I-TECH), Harare, Zimbabwe.
Blessing WazaraInternational Training and Education Center for Health (I-TECH), Harare, Zimbabwe.
Clorata GwanzuraMinistry of Health and Child Care, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Ponesai NyikaU.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Ruth LevineInternational Training and Education Center for Health (I-TECH), Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Tsitsi Mutasa-ApolloMinistry of Health and Child Care, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Shirish BalachandraU.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Stefan Z WiktorInternational Training and Education Center for Health (I-TECH), Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Biomedical Research and Training Institute · ZWWashington State Department of Health · USMinistry of Health and Child Welfare · ZW

Funding

Training for Research Excellence and MeNtorship in Tuberculosis (TRENT)D43TW009539 · FIC · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI METCALFE, JOHN ZAPATA · 2013 to 2022
$2.9M
FIC NIH HHS D43 TW009539PEPFAR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCommunity ART Refill Groups (CARGs) are an antiretroviral therapy (ART) delivery model where clients voluntarily form into groups, and a group member visits the clinic to collect ART for all group members. In late 2016, Zimbabwe began a nationwide rollout of the CARG model. We conducted a qualitative evaluation to assess the perceived effects of this new national service delivery model.

methodsIn March-June 2018, we visited ten clinics implementing the CARG model across five provinces of Zimbabwe and conducted a focus group discussion with healthcare workers and in-depth interviews with three ART clients per clinic. Clinics had implemented the CARG model for approximately one year. All discussions were audio recorded, transcribed, and translated into English, and thematic coding was performed by two independent analysts.

resultsIn focus groups, healthcare workers described that CARGs made ART distribution faster and facilitated client tracking in the community. They explained that their reduced workload allowed them to provide better care to those clients who did visit the clinic, and they felt that the CARG model should be sustained in the future. CARG members reported that by decreasing the frequency of clinic visits, CARGs saved them time and money, reducing previous barriers to collecting ART and improving adherence. CARG members also valued the emotional and informational support that they received from other members of their CARG, further improving adherence. Multiple healthcare workers did express concern that CARG members with diseases that begin with minor symptoms, such as tuberculosis, may not seek treatment at the clinic until the disease has progressed.

conclusionsWe found that healthcare workers and clients overwhelmingly perceive CARGs as beneficial. This evaluation demonstrates that the CARG model can be successfully implemented on a national scale. These early results suggest that CARGs may be able to simultaneously improve clinical outcomes and reduce the workload of healthcare workers distributing ART.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareAdultAmbulatory Care FacilitiesAnti-HIV AgentsCommunity Health ServicesFemaleFocus GroupsHealth PersonnelHIV InfectionsHumansMaleModels, TheoreticalZimbabweAnti-HIV AgentsART deliverycommunity-baseddifferentiated caredifferentiated service deliveryHIVZimbabwe

Identifiers

PMID31454178
PMCPMC6711352
OpenAlexW2970724738

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.