Title
Socioeconomic support reduces nonretention in a comprehensive, community-based antiretroviral therapy program in Uganda Socioeconomic support reduces nonretention in a comprehensive, community-based antiretroviral therapy program in Uganda
Author
Faculty/Department
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences
Publication type
article
Publication
Philadelphia, Pa ,
Subject
Human medicine
Source (journal)
JAIDS. - Philadelphia, Pa
Volume/pages
59(2012) :4 , p. E52-E59
ISSN
1525-4135
ISI
000301416100001
Carrier
E
Target language
English (eng)
Full text (Publishers DOI)
Affiliation
University of Antwerp
Abstract
Objectives: We evaluated the benefit of socioeconomic support (S-E support), comprising various financial and nonfinancial services that are available based on assessment of need, in reducing mortality and lost to follow-up (LTFU) at Reach Out Mbuya, a community-based, antiretroviral therapy program in Uganda. Design: Retrospective observational cohort data from adult patients enrolled between May 31, 2001, and May 31, 2010, were examined. Methods: Patients were categorized into none, 1, and 2 or more S-E support based on the number of different S-E support services they received. Using Cox proportional hazards regression, we modeled the association between S-E support and mortality or LTFU. Kaplan-Meier curves were fitted to examine retention functions stratified by S-E support. Results: In total, 6654 patients were evaluated. After 10 years, 2700 (41%) were retained. Of the 3954 not retained, 2933 (74%) were LTFU and 1021 (26%) had died. After 1, 2, 5, and 10 years, the risks of LTFU or mortality in patients who received no S-E support were significantly higher than those who received some S-E support. In adjusted hazards ratios, patients who received no S-E support were 1.5-fold (1.39-1.64) and 6.7-fold (5.56-7.69) more likely to get LTFU compared with those who received 1 or >= 2 S-E support, respectively. Likewise, patients who received no S-E support were 1.5-fold (confidence interval: 1.16 to 1.89) and 4.3-fold (confidence interval: 2.94 to 6.25) more likely to die compared with those who received 1 or 2+ S-E support, respectively. Conclusions: Provision of S-E support reduced LTFU and mortality, suggesting the value of incorporating such strategies for promoting continuity of care.
E-info
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000301416100001&DestLinkType=RelatedRecords&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000301416100001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000301416100001&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
Handle