| Literature DB >> 28063075 |
Melanie Abas1, Primrose Nyamayaro2, Tarisai Bere3, Emily Saruchera2, Nomvuyo Mothobi4, Victoria Simms5, Walter Mangezi2, Kirsty Macpherson6, Natasha Croome6, Jessica Magidson7, Azure Makadzange7, Steven Safren8, Dixon Chibanda2,3, Conall O'Cleirigh7.
Abstract
Using a pilot trial design in an HIV care clinic in Zimbabwe, we randomised 32 adults with poor adherence to antiretroviral therapy and at least mild depression to either six sessions of Problem-Solving Therapy for adherence and depression (PST-AD) delivered by an adherence counsellor, or to Enhanced Usual Care (Control). Acceptability of PST-AD was high, as indicated by frequency of session attendance and through qualitative analyses of exit interviews. Fidelity was >80% for the first two sessions of PST-AD but fidelity to the adherence component of PST-AD dropped by session 4. Contamination occurred, in that seven patients in the control arm received one or two PST-AD sessions before follow-up assessment. Routine health records proved unreliable for measuring HIV viral load at follow-up. Barriers to measuring adherence electronically included device failure and participant perception of being helped by the research device. The study was not powered to detect clinical differences, however, promising change at 6-months follow-up was seen in electronic adherence, viral load suppression (PST-AD arm 9/12 suppressed; control arm 4/8 suppressed) and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-4.7 points in PST-AD arm vs. control, adjusted p value = 0.01). Results inform and justify a future randomised controlled trial of task-shifted PST-AD.Entities:
Keywords: Adherence; Depression; Intervention; Problem solving; Sub-Saharan Africa
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 28063075 PMCID: PMC5758696 DOI: 10.1007/s10461-016-1659-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AIDS Behav ISSN: 1090-7165
Study Outcomes
| Aim | Outcome |
|---|---|
| Feasibility of methods for conducting a trial in this setting | Recruitment: Proportion of screened participants eligible to take part, proportion of eligible participants consenting, time taken to recruit |
| Acceptability of the intervention for participants and clinic staff | Proportion of sessions attended, proportion of sessions where non-specialist collected depression measure |
| Feasibility of collecting clinical outcome measures at baseline and at follow-up 6 months after last intervention session | Depression symptom score: Using the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression and the Shona Symptom Questionnaire for common mental disorders [ |
Fig. 1Flow-chart showing the experimental and enhanced usual care interventions
Fig. 2Flow-chart showing the progress of participants from screening to follow-up
Characteristics of participants at baseline
| Intervention arm (N = 14) | Enhanced usual care arm (N = 18) | Total (N = 32) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (%) | Median (IQR) | N (%) | Median (IQR) | N (%) | Median (IQR) | |
| Age (years) | 41.8 (33.7–45.3) | 35.8 (24.1–40.6) | 37.8 (24.6–44.9) | |||
| Gender: female | 9 (64.3) | 12 (66.7) | 21 (65.6) | |||
|
| ||||||
| Married | 7 (50.0) | 9 (50.0) | 16 (50.0) | |||
| Single | 5 (35.7) | 7 (38.9) | 12 (37.5) | |||
| Widowed | 2 (14.3) | 2 (11.1) | 4 (12.5) | |||
|
| ||||||
| Pre-primary and primary school | 4 (28.6) | 5 (27.7) | 9 (28.1) | |||
| Secondary and high school | 9 (64.3) | 9 (50.0) | 18 (56.3) | |||
| Tertiary | 1 (7.1) | 4 (22.2) | 5 (15.6) | |||
|
| ||||||
| Not employed | 8 (57.1) | 5 (27.8) | 13 (40.6) | |||
| Employed (full-time, part-time and self-employed) | 6 (42.9) | 12 (66.6) | 18 (56.3) | |||
| Student | 0 | 1 (5.6) | 1 (3.1) | |||
| Food insecurity: skipped meals in the last month | 3 (21.4) | 3 (16.7) | 6 (18.8) | |||
| Time on ART (years) | 5.5 (2.3–7.6) | 3.9 (3.0–6.4) | 4.3 (2.9–6.5) | |||
|
| ||||||
| First line | 12 (85.7) | 14 (77.8) | 26 (81.3) | |||
| Second line | 2 (14.3) | 4 (22.2) | 6 (18.7) | |||
| Viral load non-suppressed (>200 copies/ml) | 13 (92.9) | 17 (94.4) | 30 (93.8) | |||
| CD4 count (cells/mm3) | 300 (144–403) | 325 (140–561) | 316 (142–438) | |||
| AUDIT-C alcohol screen | 0 | 2 (11.1) | 2 (6.3) | |||
Clinical Outcomes
| Intervention arm | EUC arm | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline (n = 14) | Follow-up (n = 14) | Baseline (n = 18) | Follow-up (n = 18) | |
| Viral suppression | 1 (7.1%) | 9 (75%)b | 1 (5.6%) | 4 (50%)c |
| Switched to 2nd or 3rd line regimen | 6 (42.9%) | 7 (38.9%) | ||
| Missed at least one HIV care appointment in last 3 months: N (%) | 4 (28.6%) | 3 (21.4%) | 4 (22.2%) | 8 (44.4%) |
| Number of missed HIV care appointment in last 3 months: mean (SD) | 0.36 (0.63) | 0.29 (0.61) | 0.39 (0.78) | 0.72 (0.96) |
amissing data on 1 participant
bmissing data on 2 participants
cmissing data on 10 participants
Key themes from qualitative interview
| Theme | Quote |
|---|---|
| Acceptability and benefits of the intervention (Interviews with intervention arm participants) | “The project should continue educating me on how to take my medications and to deal with my memory loss” |
| Acceptability and benefits of the intervention (Interviews with ADCs and staff) | “The use of video makes clients remember to take their drugs on time for it explains about the replication of the virus which leads to drug resistance…So clients have a better understanding of how ART works and what to do to remain healthy. The use of stickers also helps clients to remember taking their drugs on time” |
| Potential intervention contamination (Interviews with EUC counsellors) | “It was wonderful working with the clients who were on the Tendai study. Every time they came to me I knew exactly what to do. I had to concentrate on adherence issues. Because they were on the Tendai study I gave them more attention and time than I usually do with my other clients. That helped a lot because I was able to understand why they had adherence problems and was able to help them which we hardly do with the other clients” |