Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40857347›Full record

Observational studyPLoS medicine2025

Evaluating the impact of differentiated service delivery (DSD) on retention in care and HIV viral suppression in South Africa: A target trial emulation using routine healthcare data.

Amy N Huber, Lise Jamieson, Matthew P Fox, Musa Manganye, Lufuno Malala, Thato Chidarikire, Nthabiseng Khoza, Brooke E Nichols, Sydney Rosen, Sophie Pascoe

Registry-linked trialAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PLoS medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04149782 (Analysis of Existing Medical Record Data to Evaluate Coverage, Uptake, Benefits, and Costs of Differentiated Models of Service Delivery for HIV Treatment in Africa), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04149782 recruitingnot on this map

Analysis of Existing Medical Record Data to Evaluate Coverage, Uptake, Benefits, and Costs of Differentiated Models of Service Delivery for HIV Treatment in Africa (South Africa)

TypeobservationalSponsorBoston UniversityRan2019 to 2027Enrolled7,000,000ConditionsHIVArmsRoutine medical record data collection
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

Amy N HuberHealth Economics and Epidemiology Research Office, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2179-0251
Lise JamiesonHealth Economics and Epidemiology Research Office, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2354-4580
Matthew P FoxHealth Economics and Epidemiology Research Office, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9887-0634
Musa ManganyeNational Department of Health, South African Government, Pretoria, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8420-0613
Lufuno MalalaNational Department of Health, South African Government, Pretoria, South Africa.
Thato ChidarikireWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Nthabiseng KhozaNational Department of Health, South African Government, Pretoria, South Africa.
Brooke E NicholsDepartment of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4682-4999
Sydney RosenHealth Economics and Epidemiology Research Office, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6560-2964
Sophie PascoeHealth Economics and Epidemiology Research Office, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9199-8333

Funding

Gates Foundation INV-037138World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReplacing conventional, facility-based HIV treatment with less intensive differentiated service delivery (DSD) models could benefit DSD clients and the health system, but its value depends on maintaining or improving clinical outcomes. We compared retention and viral suppression between antiretroviral therapy (ART) clients enrolled in DSD models to those eligible for but not enrolled in DSD models in South Africa. METHODS AND

findingsWe applied a target trial emulation (TTE) methodology to data from South Africa's electronic medical record system (TIER.Net) for 24 public-sector health facilities across three provinces and estimated retention in care (attended facility visit within 12 months) and viral suppression (<400 copies/ml3) at 12, 24, and 36 months after follow-up start date, defined as DSD enrollment date for the intervention arm and the first trial enrollment period facility visit for the comparison arm. Clients were eligible for DSD models if they were ≥18 years old, on ART ≥12 months, and had two suppressed viral load (VL) measurements, per prevailing national guidelines. For the TTE, we designated eight 6-month target trial enrollment periods between 1 July 2017 and 1 July 2021. For each period, we estimated the risk differences for retention in care and viral suppression by comparing those enrolled in DSD models to those not enrolled, using a Poisson distribution with an identity link function. We report adjusted and unadjusted risk differences for clients enrolled in DSD models and for DSD-eligible clients not enrolled in a DSD model. Estimates were adjusted for age, sex, urban/rural facility setting, province, WHO stage at ART initiation, and years on ART at trial enrollment. 49,595 unique individuals were eligible for DSD enrollment over eight target trials, contributing to a total of 148,943 trial-clients, of whom 17% (25,775) were enrolled in DSD models. The pooled adjusted risk difference for retention in care between clients enrolled in DSD and those not enrolled in DSD was 3.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) [1.6%,4.7%]) at 12 months, 4.2% (95% CI [2.4%,6.0%]) at 24 months, and 4.4% (95% CI [2.0%,6.8%]) at 36 months. For viral suppression, the adjusted risk difference comparing DSD to non-DSD was estimated to be 1.4% (95% CI [-0.5%,3.2%]) at 12 months, 1.7% (95% CI [-0.5%,4.0%]) at 24 months, and 1.4% (95% CI [-0.6%,4.4%]) at 36 months. Results remained consistent across target trials. Clients who were younger, received care from a facility in an urban settings, or had less ART experience at trial enrollment had lower retention. Study limitations include reliance on routinely collected medical records and the likely presence of residual confounding.

conclusionsClients enrolled in DSD models in South Africa had slightly better retention in care and similar viral suppression to those who were eligible for but not enrolled in DSD. With better or equivalent outcomes, DSD models can be assessed on the basis of non-clinic costs and benefits, such as changes in quality of care and resource utilization.

trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT04149782.

Indexed as

Anti-HIV AgentsDelivery of Health CareHIV InfectionsRetention in CareViral LoadAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSouth AfricaYoung AdultAnti-HIV Agents

Identifiers

PMID40857347
PMCPMC12410879

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.