| Literature DB >> 20796284 |
Louise C Ivers1,2,3,4, Yuchiao Chang3,4, J Gregory Jerome5, Kenneth A Freedberg3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few data are available to guide programmatic solutions to the overlapping problems of undernutrition and HIV infection. We evaluated the impact of food assistance on patient outcomes in a comprehensive HIV program in central Haiti in a prospective observational cohort study.Entities:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20796284 PMCID: PMC2940780 DOI: 10.1186/1742-6405-7-33
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AIDS Res Ther ISSN: 1742-6405 Impact factor: 2.250
Figure 1Distribution of subjects with HIV enrolled in observational cohort study in central Haiti. TB = tuberculosis. BMI = body mass index. * not mutually exclusive. ** all changes in food status were from "No Food" to "Food Assistance" status. ¶ 1 subject did not have BMI data and was not included in BMI analysis. ¶¶ 3 subjects did not have BMI data and were not included in BMI analysis
Baseline characteristics at 6 and 12 months of a cohort of people with HIV in central Haiti
| Subjects with 6-month follow-up | Subjects with 12-month follow-up | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No Food group | Food Assistance group | P value | No Food group | Food Assistance group | P value | |||||
| Age, mean yrs (SD) | 35 | (9) | 37 | (10) | 0.12 | 36 | (10) | 37 | (10) | 0.26 |
| Female, N (%) | 149 | 59.4% | 144 | 60.8% | 0.75 | 74 | 59.2% | 126 | 58.6% | 0.91 |
| Proportion of monthly income spent on food*, N (%) | 0.80 | 0.68 | ||||||||
| None | 22 | 8.8% | 28 | 11.8% | _ | 10 | 8.0% | 25 | 11.6% | _ |
| Small amount | 13 | 5.2% | 10 | 4.2% | _ | 7 | 5.6% | 8 | 3.7% | _ |
| Half | 28 | 11.2% | 29 | 12.2% | _ | 13 | 10.4% | 27 | 12.6% | _ |
| Most | 72 | 28.7% | 65 | 27.4% | _ | 38 | 30.4% | 58 | 27.0% | _ |
| All | 112 | 44.6% | 101 | 42.6% | _ | 55 | 44.0% | 94 | 43.7% | _ |
| ART group, N (%) | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | ||||||||
| No ART | 106 | 42.2% | 42 | 17.7% | _ | 47 | 37.6% | 40 | 18.6% | _ |
| On ART ≥ 1 yr | 134 | 53.4% | 145 | 61.2% | _ | 69 | 55.2% | 130 | 60.5% | _ |
| On ART < 1 yr | 11 | 4.4% | 50 | 21.1% | _ | 9 | 7.2% | 45 | 20.9% | _ |
| Female-headed household*, N (%) | 123 | 49.0% | 112 | 47.3% | 0.67 | 63 | 50.4% | 102 | 47.4% | 0.58 |
| Literate*, N (%) | 148 | 59.0% | 127 | 53.6% | 0.25 | 75 | 60.0% | 119 | 55.3% | 0.43 |
| Number sharing household meals, mean (SD) | 6.7 | (2.9) | 6.1 | (2.9) | 0.035 | 6.8 | (2.9) | 6.3 | (2.9) | 0.18 |
| Food insecurity score**, mean (SD) | 13.9 | (3.9) | 15.4 | (3.9) | <0.0001 | 14.0 | (4.1) | 15.3 | (3.9) | 0.003 |
| Body mass index†, mean kg/m2 (SD) | 22.4 | (2.7) | 20.4 | (3.2) | <0.0001 | 22.5 | (3.0) | 20.2 | (3.0) | <0.0001 |
SD = standard deviation
ART = antiretroviral therapy
* sample size varies due to missing survey responses
** range 0 (best food security) to 20 (worst food insecurity
† Body mass index range: ≤18.5 = underweight; 18.5-24.9 = normal; ≥25.0 = overweight
6-month and 12-month outcomes among a cohort of people living with HIV in Haiti who did and did not receive food assistance
| 6-month outcomes | 12-month outcomes | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No food group | Food Assistance group | Univariate P value | Multivariable P value* | No food group | Food Assistance group | Univariate P value | Multivariable P value* | |||||
| Change in Food Insecurity Score, mean (SE) | -0.16 | (0.28) | -3.55 | (0.33) | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | -1.89 | (0.47) | -3.49 | (0.33) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Change in body mass index**, mean (SE) | -0.66 | (0.13) | -0.20 | (0.13) | 0.012 | 0.020 | -0.67 | (0.22) | 0.22 | (0.17) | 0.002 | 0.036 |
| Adherence to scheduled monthly clinic visits, mean number attended (SE) | 2.82 | (0.20) | 5.49 | (0.17) | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 8.34 | (0.44) | 9.73 | (0.32) | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Change in QOL (role-functioning), mean (SE) | -5.08 | (3.01) | -1.90 | (2.98) | 0.28 | 0.84 | -3.80 | (4.03) | 3.72 | (3.46) | 0.13 | 0.11 |
| Change in QOL (performance-functioning), mean (SE) | 5.31 | (1.77) | 10.69 | (1.99) | 0.055 | 0.009 | 9.47 | (2.67) | 8.76 | (2.17) | 0.48 | 0.69 |
| Reports problem taking ART†, N (%) | 41 | 28.1% | 26 | 14.4% | 0.001 | 0.001 | 15 | 18.8% | 18 | 11.0% | 0.068 | 0.075 |
| Was able to save money in case of disaster**, N (%) | 66 | 26.5% | 45 | 19.1% | 0.63 | 0.35 | 41 | 33.3% | 52 | 24.9% | 0.59 | 0.42 |
| Spent less money on agriculture to buy food**, N (%) | 75 | 38.1% | 57 | 31.7% | 0.58 | 0.57 | 37 | 39.8% | 48 | 25.9% | 0.11 | 0.082 |
| Spent less on education to buy food**, N (%) | 84 | 36.5% | 75 | 33.9% | 0.75 | 0.63 | 34 | 30.6% | 68 | 33.7% | 0.28 | 0.25 |
| Sold livestock to buy food‡, N (%) | 43 | 41.3% | 25 | 24.5% | 0.092 | 0.082 | 20 | 38.5% | 25 | 25.0% | 0.097 | 0.11 |
SE = standard error
ART = antiretroviral therapy
QOL = quality of life
* Controlling for gender, literacy, ART group, number of people sharing meals in the household
** Sample size varied due to missing survey responses
† Limited to those who were on ART
‡ Limited to those who owned livestock