ArticleAIDS research and therapy2022
Impact of an intensive facility-community case management intervention on 6-month HIV outcomes among select key and priority populations in Uganda.
Article in AIDS research and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionKey and priority populations (with risk behaviours and health inequities) are disproportionately affected by HIV in Uganda. We evaluated the impact of an intensive case management intervention on HIV treatment outcomes in Kalangala District, predominantly inhabited by fisher folk and female sex workers.
methodsThis quasi-experimental pre-post intervention evaluation included antiretroviral therapy naïve adults aged ≥ 18 years from six health facilities in the pre-intervention (Jan 1, 2017-December 31, 2017) and intervention phase (June 13, 2018-June 30, 2019). The primary outcomes were 6-month retention and viral suppression (VS) before and after implementation of the intervention involving facility and community case managers who supported participants through at least the first three months of ART. We used descriptive statistics to compared the characteristics, overall outcomes (i.e., retention, lost to follow up, died), and VS of participants by phase, and used mixed-effects logistic regression models to determine factors associated with 6-month retention in care. Marginal (averaging over facilities) probabilities of retention were computed from the final multivariable model.
resultsWe enrolled 606 and 405 participants in the pre-intervention and intervention phases respectively. Approximately 75% of participants were aged 25-44 years, with similar age and gender distributions among phases. Approximately 46% of participants in the intervention were fisher folk and 9% were female sex workers. The adjusted probability of 6-month retention was higher in the intervention phase, 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77-0.90) versus pre-intervention phase, 0.73 (95% CI: 0.69-0.77, p = 0.03). The retention probability increased from 0.59 (0.49-0.68) to 0.73 (0.59-0.86), p = 0.03 among participants aged 18-24 years, and from 0.75 (0.71-0.78) to 0.85 (0.78-0.91), p = 0.03 among participants aged ≥ 25 years. VS (< 1,000 copies/mL) was approximately 87% in both phases.
conclusionsAfter implementation of the case management intervention, we observed significant improvement in 6-month retention in all age groups of a highly mobile population of predominantly fisher folk.
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.