ArticleAIDS (London, England)2021
County-level predictors of retention in care status among people living with HIV in South Carolina from 2010 to 2016: a data-driven approach.
Article in AIDS (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Geospatial Accessibility Factors Influencing HIV Care Continuum Outcomes in South Carolina.AIDS and behavior · 2026Article
- Geospatial Approaches to HIV Care: a Scoping Review of Asset Mapping.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2026Article
- Longitudinal Patterns and Predictors of Racial Disparities of HIV Retention in Care: A Statewide Cohort Analysis.AIDS and behavior · 2025Article
- Article
- Residential Segregation and County-Level COVID-19 Booster Coverage in the Deep South: Surveillance Report and Ecological Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2023Article
- Article
- Power of Big Data in ending HIV.AIDS (London, England) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to examine the geospatial variation of retention in care (RIC) across the counties in South Carolina (SC) from 2010 to 2016 and identify the relevant county-level predictors.
designAggregated data on county-level RIC among HIV patients from 2010 to 2016 were retrieved from an electronic HIV/AIDS reporting system in SC Department of Health and Environmental Control. Sociological framework of health was used to select potential county-level predictors from multiple public datasets.
methodsGeospatial mapping was used to display the spatial heterogeneity of county-level RIC rate in SC. Generalized linear mixed effect regression with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) was employed to identify county-level predictors related to the change of RIC status over time. Confusion matrix and area under the curve statistics were used to evaluate model performance.
resultsMore than half of the counties had their RIC rates lower than the national average. The change of county-level RIC rate from 2010 to 2016 was not significant, and spatial heterogeneity in RIC rate was identified. A total of 22 of the 31 county-level predictors were selected by LASSO for predicting county-level RIC status. Counties with lower collective efficacy, larger proportions of men and/or persons with high education were more likely to have their RIC rates lower than the national average. In contrast, numbers of accessible mental health centres were positively related to county-level RIC status.
conclusionSpatial variation in RIC could be identified, and county-level factors associated with accessible healthcare facilities and social capital significantly contributed to these variations. Structural and individual interventions targeting these factors are needed to improve the county-level RIC and reduce the spatial variation in HIV care.
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.