ArticlePloS one2023
Development and validation of a prediction tool to support engagement in HIV care among young people ages 10-24 years in Kenya.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionLoss to follow-up (LTFU) among adolescents and young adults living with HIV (AYALWH) is a barrier to optimal health and HIV services. We developed and validated a clinical prediction tool to identify AYALWH at risk of LTFU.
methodsWe used electronic medical records (EMR) of AYALWH ages 10 to 24 in HIV care at 6 facilities in Kenya and surveys from a subset of participants. Early LTFU was defined as >30 days late for a scheduled visit in the last 6 months, which accounts for clients with multi-month refills. We developed a tool combining surveys with EMR ('survey-plus-EMR tool'), and an 'EMR-alone' tool to predict high, medium, and low risk of LTFU. The survey-plus-EMR tool included candidate sociodemographics, partnership status, mental health, peer support, any unmet clinic needs, WHO stage, and time in care variables for tool development, while the EMR-alone included clinical and time in care variables only. Tools were developed in a 50% random sample of the data and internally validated using 10-fold cross-validation of the full sample. Tool performance was evaluated using Hazard Ratios (HR), 95% Confidence Intervals (CI), and area under the curve (AUC) ≥ 0.7 for good performance and ≥0.60 for modest performance.
resultsData from 865 AYALWH were included in the survey-plus-EMR tool and early LTFU was (19.2%, 166/865). The survey-plus-EMR tool ranged from 0 to 4, including PHQ-9 ≥5, lack of peer support group attendance, and any unmet clinical need. High (3 or 4) and medium (2) prediction scores were associated with greater risk of LTFU (high, 29.0%, HR 2.16, 95%CI: 1.25-3.73; medium, 21.4%, HR 1.52, 95%CI: 0.93-2.49, global p-value = 0.02) in the validation dataset. The 10-fold cross validation AUC was 0.66 (95%CI: 0.63-0.72). Data from 2,696 AYALWH were included in the EMR-alone tool and early LTFU was 28.6% (770/2,696). In the validation dataset, high (score = 2, LTFU = 38.5%, HR 2.40, 95%CI: 1.17-4.96) and medium scores (1, 29.6%, HR 1.65, 95%CI: 1.00-2.72) predicted significantly higher LTFU than low-risk scores (0, 22.0%, global p-value = 0.03). Ten-fold cross-validation AUC was 0.61 (95%CI: 0.59-0.64).
conclusionsClinical prediction of LTFU was modest using the surveys-plus-EMR tool and the EMR-alone tool, suggesting limited use in routine care. However, findings may inform future prediction tools and intervention targets to reduce LTFU among AYALWH.
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.