Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33794943›Full record

ArticleSubstance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy2021

Proportion and reasons for loss to follow-up in a cohort study of people who inject drugs to measure HIV and HCV incidence in Kerman, Iran.

Ghazal Mousavian, Nima Ghalekhani, Fatemeh Tavakoli, Willi McFarland, Armita Shahesmaeili, Heidar Sharafi, Mehrdad Khezri, Soheil Mehmandoost, Jasem Zarei, Hamid Sharifi and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ghazal MousavianHIV/STI Surveillance Research Center, and WHO Collaborating Center for HIV Surveillance, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Nima GhalekhaniHIV/STI Surveillance Research Center, and WHO Collaborating Center for HIV Surveillance, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Fatemeh TavakoliHIV/STI Surveillance Research Center, and WHO Collaborating Center for HIV Surveillance, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Willi McFarlandDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Armita ShahesmaeiliHIV/STI Surveillance Research Center, and WHO Collaborating Center for HIV Surveillance, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Heidar SharafiHIV/STI Surveillance Research Center, and WHO Collaborating Center for HIV Surveillance, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Mehrdad KhezriHIV/STI Surveillance Research Center, and WHO Collaborating Center for HIV Surveillance, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Soheil MehmandoostHIV/STI Surveillance Research Center, and WHO Collaborating Center for HIV Surveillance, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Jasem ZareiHIV/STI Surveillance Research Center, and WHO Collaborating Center for HIV Surveillance, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Hamid SharifiHIV/STI Surveillance Research Center, and WHO Collaborating Center for HIV Surveillance, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran. hsharifi@kmu.ac.ir.ORCID 0000-0002-9008-7618
Ali MirzazadehHIV/STI Surveillance Research Center, and WHO Collaborating Center for HIV Surveillance, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Kerman University of Medical Sciences · IRUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Virology CoreP30AI027763 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI STEVEN Grant DEEKS · 1988 to 2026
$93.6M
Int'l Traineeships in AIDS Prevention Studies (ITAPS)R25MH064712 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LINDAN, CHRISTINA P · 2002 to 2018
$3.4M
International Traineeships in AIDS Prevention Studies (ITAPS)R25MH123256 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI CHRISTINA P LINDAN · 2020 to 2026
$1.8M
National Institute for Medical Research Development 973382National Institutes of Health, University of California, San Francisco-Gladstone Institute of Virology & Immunology Center for AIDS Research P30-AI027763NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI027763NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH064712NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH123256
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding the reasons for loss to follow-up (LTFU) in cohort studies, especially among marginalized groups such as people who inject drugs (PWID), is needed to strengthen the rigor of efficacy trials for prevention and treatment interventions. We assessed the proportion and reasons for loss to follow-up in a recent cohort of PWID enrolled in the southeast of Iran.

methodsUsing respondent-driven sampling, we recruited 98 PWID age 18 years or older who reported injecting drugs in the past 6 months, and were negative for HIV and HCV at initial screening. Participants were followed at 6 week intervals, alternating a short six-week visit and long 12-week or quarterly visit to measure incidence of HIV and HCV. Methods to enhance retention included incentives for completing each visit, tracking people who missed the scheduled visits through their peer referral networks, engaged outreach teams to explore hotspots and residences, and photos. LTFU was defined as participants who missed their quarterly visits for two or more weeks.

resultsMean (SD) age of participants was 39.7 years (SD 9.6). Of 98 enrolled, 50 participants (51.0%) were LTFU by missed their scheduled quarterly visits for 2 weeks or more. For those whose reasons for LTFU could be defined (46.0%, 23 of 50), main reasons were: forgetting the date of visit (43.5%, 10 of 23), being incarcerated (39.1%, 9 of 23), and moving out of the city (17.4%, 4 of 23).

conclusionThis study highlighted the difficulty in retaining PWID in longitudinal studies. Despite having several retention strategies in place, over half of PWID were LTFU. The LTFU might be reduced by setting up more effective reminder systems, working closely with security systems, and online means to reach those who move outside the study area.

Indexed as

Hepatitis CHIV InfectionsPharmaceutical PreparationsSubstance Abuse, IntravenousAdolescentAdultCohort StudiesFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidenceIranPharmaceutical PreparationsFollow-up studyLoss to follow-upPeople who inject drugsReminder system

Identifiers

PMID33794943
PMCPMC8017615
OpenAlexW3143221927

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.