Download - Matthew Lamb mrl2013@columbia ICAP-M&E
![Page 1: Matthew Lamb mrl2013@columbia ICAP-M&E](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070421/56815fea550346895dcef040/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Matthew Lamb [email protected]&E
Barriers to Retention and
Factors Associated with LTF in HIV Programs
The literature and ICAP
![Page 2: Matthew Lamb mrl2013@columbia ICAP-M&E](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070421/56815fea550346895dcef040/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Barriers to retention
Structural• Financial
• Transportation• Competing priorities
Biomedical• Illness• Health
• Clinical issues
Psychosocial• Forgetfulness• Drug abuse• Stigma/disclosure• Available support systems• Knowledge/beliefs
![Page 3: Matthew Lamb mrl2013@columbia ICAP-M&E](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070421/56815fea550346895dcef040/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
![Page 4: Matthew Lamb mrl2013@columbia ICAP-M&E](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070421/56815fea550346895dcef040/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Questions asked by Geng et al.
1. What happened to patients who were LTF?• vital status• current care and ART status
2. What reasons do patients LTF give for no longer attending clinic?
![Page 5: Matthew Lamb mrl2013@columbia ICAP-M&E](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070421/56815fea550346895dcef040/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Study design and sampling frame
3,628 ART patients
77% (2,799) remained in care 23% (829) LTF
15% (128) tracked
13% (17) not found 25% (32) died 62% (79) alive
61% (48) patient interviewed
39% (31) informant interviewed
Questionnaire: reasons for LTF; current care and
ART status
Automatically generated from electronic medical records when patient has not been
seen for 6 monthsOutreach Worker:
Visits location of patient, asks around~ 1 afternoon/patient
Cumulative LTF Incidence:12 mo: 16%24 mo: 30%36 mo: 39%
![Page 6: Matthew Lamb mrl2013@columbia ICAP-M&E](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070421/56815fea550346895dcef040/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Reasons for LTF among 48 patients directly interviewed
![Page 7: Matthew Lamb mrl2013@columbia ICAP-M&E](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070421/56815fea550346895dcef040/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Patient characteristics associated with Death among those LTF
32 died (25%) 79 alive
111 tracked and vital status ascertained
Clinical measure at last visit
Hazard Ratio 95% CI
Increasing Age Per 10 yr increase 2.0 (1.1-3.8)
Low blood pressure
< 75 mm HG vs. > 75 mm HG
3.0 (1.2-7.7)
CNS syndrome Yes vs. no 2.9 (1.1-7.4)
Pre-ART CD4 count Per 50 cells/mm3 increase
0.6 (0.4-0.9)
* death rate highest 1-3 mo > last clinic visit
Predictors of Survival in LTF Patients
![Page 8: Matthew Lamb mrl2013@columbia ICAP-M&E](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070421/56815fea550346895dcef040/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Study design and sampling frame
3,628 ART patients
77% (2,799) remained in care 23% (829) LTF
15% (128) tracked
13% (17) not found 25% (32) died 62% (79) alive
61% (48) patient interviewed
39% (31) informant interviewed
83% (40) in care elsewhere in last 3 months71% (34) taking ART in the last month
*self report
![Page 9: Matthew Lamb mrl2013@columbia ICAP-M&E](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070421/56815fea550346895dcef040/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Extrapolating to all LTF patients
Patient attends clinic
Recorded survival and
retention
Unknown (LTF)
Recorded transfer
Recorded death
Unrecorded withdrawal
Unrecorded death
Self-reported transfer
~ 50% ~ 25% ~ 25%
![Page 10: Matthew Lamb mrl2013@columbia ICAP-M&E](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070421/56815fea550346895dcef040/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Conclusions and points for future discussion
• Structural barriers to retention dominate the given reasons in this study– Are there program characteristics that address enablers
to retention?• Among those LTF later ascertained to be dead, highest
death rate shortly after last clinic visit
• Clinical/demographic factors associated with death among LTF patients suggests areas of potential intervention– How can this inform clinic monitoring of patients at high
risk of death?
• LTF is a mix of undocumented deaths (bad!), unknown (bad!) and transfers (problematic!)
![Page 11: Matthew Lamb mrl2013@columbia ICAP-M&E](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070421/56815fea550346895dcef040/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Program characteristics associated with non-retention,
LTF, and death at ICAP sitesPreliminary workMatthew Lamb
![Page 12: Matthew Lamb mrl2013@columbia ICAP-M&E](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070421/56815fea550346895dcef040/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Aims
• Are program-level characteristics (e.g., adherence support, outreach) associated with retention, LTF, or death at ICAP-supported sites?
• Are the observed associations similar when using aggregate (URS) and patient-level data?
![Page 13: Matthew Lamb mrl2013@columbia ICAP-M&E](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070421/56815fea550346895dcef040/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Program characteristics
• Measured from PFaCTS• Only gets at program availability, not quality
or coverage• Reliability study ongoing, results soon!
• Current ICAP ‘retention’ programs focus primarily on psychosocial interventions to improve adherence to ART in addition to retention
![Page 14: Matthew Lamb mrl2013@columbia ICAP-M&E](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070421/56815fea550346895dcef040/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Data sources
URS: 349 sites, 10 countries,
233,000 patients
URS: 242 sites, 5 countries,
156,000 patients
PLD: 84 sites, 5 countries, 80,000
patients
Program characteristics: PFaCTS
![Page 15: Matthew Lamb mrl2013@columbia ICAP-M&E](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070421/56815fea550346895dcef040/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Study Design
• Aggregate estimates of LTF, Death, and Non-retention (LTF + Death) rates obtained from Track 1.0 indicators reported to URS• Cumulative number on ART – cumulative number LTF or dead• Excluding known transfers
• Patient-level estimates based on person-years since ART initiation until (a) documented death or (b) 6 months with no visit
• Excluding known transfers
• Information combined with PFaCTS to assess association between characteristics targeting adherence and retention and the two measures of LTF rates
![Page 16: Matthew Lamb mrl2013@columbia ICAP-M&E](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070421/56815fea550346895dcef040/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Program characteristics associated with LTF: aggregate data
N = 384 sites with PFaCTS and URS care and treatment data through July, 2009 (10 countries)N = 242 sites with PFaCTS in countries providing electronic PLD, to ICAP-NY (5 countries)
N = 84 sites with PFaCTS, electronic PLD, and URS care and treatment data through July, 2009 (5 countries)
Educational materials
>1 directedcounseling
Frequentcounseling
Supportgroups
Peereducators
Remindertools
Food support
Outreach
Through June 2009. Adjusting for urban/rural, facility type, year facility began providing ART care, cumulative number of patients seen in care
LTF
Rat
e R
atio
(95%
CI)
![Page 17: Matthew Lamb mrl2013@columbia ICAP-M&E](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070421/56815fea550346895dcef040/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Preliminary results: focusing on two programmatic services (active patient outreach and food support): 84 sites with patient-level data
Aggregate analysis
1st bar = crude, 2nd bar = adjusted
Patient-level analysis
1st bar = crude, 2nd bar = adjusted for
site-level factors3rd bar = adjusted for
site- and patient-level factors
![Page 18: Matthew Lamb mrl2013@columbia ICAP-M&E](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070421/56815fea550346895dcef040/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
LTF since ART initiation, by urban/rural:100 ICAP sites with patient-level data
![Page 19: Matthew Lamb mrl2013@columbia ICAP-M&E](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070421/56815fea550346895dcef040/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
LTF since ART initiation, by facility type:100 ICAP sites with patient-level data
![Page 20: Matthew Lamb mrl2013@columbia ICAP-M&E](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070421/56815fea550346895dcef040/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
LTF since ART initiation, by year of ART initiation:100 ICAP sites with patient-level data
![Page 21: Matthew Lamb mrl2013@columbia ICAP-M&E](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070421/56815fea550346895dcef040/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
ICAP analysis: Strengths and limitations
• Routinely-collected data• Aggregate analyses can
use all ICAP care and treatment sites
• Patient-level analyses show that results from aggregate are largely reliable
• Routinely-collected data• PFaCTS doesn’t get at
program quality or coverage
• Potential misclassification in PFaCTS harder to detect true associations
Strengths Limitations
![Page 22: Matthew Lamb mrl2013@columbia ICAP-M&E](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070421/56815fea550346895dcef040/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Conclusions
• Routinely-collected data provide evidence that program services may influence patient retention
• Structural barriers may be important (Geng), and one intervention aimed at these barriers (food support) is associated with reduced LTF
• Use of routinely collected data for program evaluation can provide insights for further research
![Page 23: Matthew Lamb mrl2013@columbia ICAP-M&E](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070421/56815fea550346895dcef040/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Acknowledgements• ICAP country programs• ICAP M&E Advisors• Ministries of Health, provincial and district-level
programs• Non-governmental organizations and partners• PEPFAR• Doris Duke Charitable Foundation ORACTA program• ICAP M&E NY team• Molly McNairy• Denis Nash