ArticlePloS one2024
Can routine antenatal data be used to assess HIV antiretroviral therapy coverage among pregnant women? Evaluating the validity of different data sources in the Western Cape, South Africa.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate measurement of antenatal antiretroviral treatment (ART) coverage in pregnancy is imperative in tracking progress towards elimination of vertical HIV transmission. In the Western Cape, South Africa, public-sector individual-level routine data are consolidated from multiple sources, enabling the description of temporal changes in population-wide antenatal antiretroviral coverage. We evaluated the validity of different methods for measuring ART coverage among pregnant women.
methodsWe compared self-reported ART data from a 2014 antenatal survey with laboratory assay data from a sub-sample within the survey population. Thereafter, we conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of all pregnancies consolidated in the Provincial Health Data Centre (PHDC) from January 2011 to December 2020. Evidence of antenatal and HIV care from electronic platforms were linked using a unique patient identifier. ART coverage estimates were triangulated with available antenatal survey estimates, aggregated programmatic data from registers recorded in the District Health Information System (DHIS) and Thembisa modelling estimates.
resultsSelf-reported ART in the 2014 sentinel antenatal survey (n = 1434) had high sensitivity (83.5%), specificity (94.5%) and agreement (k = 0.8) with the gold standard of laboratory analysis of ART. Based on linked routine data, ART coverage by the time of delivery in mothers of live births increased from 67.4% in 2011 to 94.7% by 2019. This pattern of increasing antenatal ART coverage was also seen in the DHIS data, and estimated by the Thembisa model, but was less consistent in the antenatal survey data.
conclusionThis study is the first in a high-burden HIV setting to compare sentinel ART surveillance data with consolidated individuated administrative data. Although self-report in survey conditions showed high validity, more recent data sources based on self-report and medical records may be uncertain with increasing ART coverage over time. Linked individuated data may offer a promising option for ART coverage estimation with greater granularity and efficiency.
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.