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.
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.
Authors: Jonathan A C Sterne; Miguel A Hernán; Bruno Ledergerber; Kate Tilling; Rainer Weber; Pedram Sendi; Martin Rickenbach; James M Robins; Matthias Egger Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Jul 30-Aug 5 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Edward J Mills; Celestin Bakanda; Josephine Birungi; Robert Mwesigwa; Keith Chan; Nathan Ford; Robert S Hogg; Curtis Cooper Journal: AIDS Date: 2011-03-27 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: A Mocroft; S Vella; T L Benfield; A Chiesi; V Miller; P Gargalianos; A d'Arminio Monforte; I Yust; J N Bruun; A N Phillips; J D Lundgren Journal: Lancet Date: 1998-11-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: David Coetzee; Katherine Hildebrand; Andrew Boulle; Gary Maartens; Francoise Louis; Veliswa Labatala; Hermann Reuter; Nonthutuzelo Ntwana; Eric Goemaere Journal: AIDS Date: 2004-04-09 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Robert Colebunders; Moses Kamya; Fred Semitala; Barbara Castelnuovo; Elly Katabira; Keith McAdam Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2005-09-13 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Stella T Alamo; Robert Colebunders; Joseph Ouma; Pamela Sunday; Glenn Wagner; Fred Wabwire-Mangen; Marie Laga Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Kathrin Zürcher; Anne Mooser; Nanina Anderegg; Olga Tymejczyk; Margaret J Couvillon; Denis Nash; Matthias Egger Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2017-02-20 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: Matthew D Burkey; Sheri D Weiser; Desiree Fehmie; Stella Alamo-Talisuna; Pamella Sunday; Joy Nannyunja; Steven J Reynolds; Larry W Chang Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2014-05-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Matthew D Hickey; Thomas A Odeny; Maya Petersen; Torsten B Neilands; Nancy Padian; Nathan Ford; Zachary Matthay; David Hoos; Meg Doherty; Chris Beryer; Stefan Baral; Elvin H Geng Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2017-08-08 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Frédérique Chammartin; Kathrin Zürcher; Olivia Keiser; Ralf Weigel; Kathryn Chu; Agnes N Kiragga; Cristina Ardura-Garcia; Nanina Anderegg; Christian Laurent; Morna Cornell; Hannock Tweya; Andreas D Haas; Brian D Rice; Elvin H Geng; Matthew P Fox; James R Hargreaves; Matthias Egger Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Arnold Ssemwogerere; Javilla Kakooza Kamya; Lillian Nuwasasira; Claire Ahura; Derrick Isaac Isooba; Edith K Wakida; Celestino Obua; Richard Migisha Journal: AIDS Res Ther Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 2.846
Authors: Andrew G Flynn; Godwin Anguzu; Frank Mubiru; Agnes N Kiragga; Moses Kamya; David B Meya; David R Boulware; Andrew Kambugu; Barbara C Castelnuovo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 3.240