Laura K Beres1, Sheree Schwartz2, Sandra Simbeza3, John McGready4, Ingrid Eshun-Wilson5, Chanda Mwamba3, Kombatende Sikombe3, Stephanie M Topp6, Paul Somwe3, Aaloke Mody5, Njekwa Mukamba3, Peter D Ehrenkranz7, Nancy Padian8, Jake Pry3,5, Carolyn Bolton Moore3,9, Charles B Holmes1,10, Izukanji Sikazwe3, Julie A Denison1, Elvin Geng5. 1. Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD. 3. Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD. 5. Division of Infectious Diseases, Washington University School of Medicine, University of Washington, St. Louis, St. Louis, MO. 6. College of Public Health, Medical and Veterinary Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia. 7. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA. 8. Division of Epidemiology, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA; and. 9. Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 10. Department of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dynamic movement of patients in and out of HIV care is prevalent, but there is limited information on patterns of patient re-engagement or predictors of return to guide HIV programs to better support patient engagement. METHODS: From a probability-based sample of lost to follow-up, adult patients traced by peer educators from 31 Zambian health facilities, we prospectively followed disengaged HIV patients for return clinic visits. We estimated the cumulative incidence of return and the time to return using Kaplan-Meier methods. We used univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to conduct a risk factor analysis identifying predictors of incident return across a social ecological framework. RESULTS: Of the 556 disengaged patients, 73.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 61.0 to 83.8] returned to HIV care. The median follow-up time from disengagement was 32.3 months (interquartile range: 23.6-38.9). The rate of return decreased with time postdisengagement. Independent predictors of incident return included a previous gap in care [adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR): 1.95, 95% CI: 1.23 to 3.09] and confronting a stigmatizer once in the past year (aHR: 2.14, 95% CI: 1.25 to 3.65). Compared with a rural facility, patients were less likely to return if they sought care from an urban facility (aHR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.96) or hospital (aHR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions are needed to hasten re-engagement in HIV care. Early and differential interventions by time since disengagement may improve intervention effectiveness. Patients in urban and tertiary care settings may need additional support. Improving patient resilience, outreach after a care gap, and community stigma reduction may facilitate return. Future re-engagement research should include causal evaluation of identified factors.
BACKGROUND: Dynamic movement of patients in and out of HIV care is prevalent, but there is limited information on patterns of patient re-engagement or predictors of return to guide HIV programs to better support patient engagement. METHODS: From a probability-based sample of lost to follow-up, adult patients traced by peer educators from 31 Zambian health facilities, we prospectively followed disengaged HIV patients for return clinic visits. We estimated the cumulative incidence of return and the time to return using Kaplan-Meier methods. We used univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to conduct a risk factor analysis identifying predictors of incident return across a social ecological framework. RESULTS: Of the 556 disengaged patients, 73.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 61.0 to 83.8] returned to HIV care. The median follow-up time from disengagement was 32.3 months (interquartile range: 23.6-38.9). The rate of return decreased with time postdisengagement. Independent predictors of incident return included a previous gap in care [adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR): 1.95, 95% CI: 1.23 to 3.09] and confronting a stigmatizer once in the past year (aHR: 2.14, 95% CI: 1.25 to 3.65). Compared with a rural facility, patients were less likely to return if they sought care from an urban facility (aHR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.96) or hospital (aHR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions are needed to hasten re-engagement in HIV care. Early and differential interventions by time since disengagement may improve intervention effectiveness. Patients in urban and tertiary care settings may need additional support. Improving patient resilience, outreach after a care gap, and community stigma reduction may facilitate return. Future re-engagement research should include causal evaluation of identified factors.
Authors: Aimalohi A Ahonkhai; Juliet Adeola; Bolanle Banigbe; Ifeyinwa Onwuatuelo; Abdulkabir B Adegoke; Ingrid V Bassett; Elena Losina; Kenneth A Freedberg; Prosper Okonkwo; Susan Regan Journal: J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care Date: 2016-10-10
Authors: Stephanie A Nixon; Virginia Bond; Patricia Solomon; Cathy Cameron; Chanda Mwamba; Jill Hanass-Hancock; Margaret C Maimbolwa; J Anitha Menon; Phillimon Simwaba; Robert Sinyinza; Margaret Siwale; Stephen Tattle; Tammy Yates Journal: AIDS Care Date: 2017-08-21
Authors: Jacek Skarbinski; Eli Rosenberg; Gabriela Paz-Bailey; H Irene Hall; Charles E Rose; Abigail H Viall; Jennifer L Fagan; Amy Lansky; Jonathan H Mermin Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Peter F Rebeiro; Giorgos Bakoyannis; Beverly S Musick; Ronald S Braithwaite; Kara K Wools-Kaloustian; Winstone Nyandiko; Fatma Some; Paula Braitstein; Constantin T Yiannoutsos Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Charles B Holmes; Izukanji Sikazwe; Kombatende Sikombe; Ingrid Eshun-Wilson; Nancy Czaicki; Laura K Beres; Njekwa Mukamba; Sandra Simbeza; Carolyn Bolton Moore; Cardinal Hantuba; Peter Mwaba; Caroline Phiri; Nancy Padian; David V Glidden; Elvin Geng Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2018-01-12 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Ingrid Eshun-Wilson; Mpande Mukumbwa-Mwenechanya; Hae-Young Kim; Arianna Zannolini; Chanda P Mwamba; David Dowdy; Estella Kalunkumya; Mwansa Lumpa; Laura K Beres; Monika Roy; Anjali Sharma; Steph M Topp; Dave V Glidden; Nancy Padian; Peter Ehrenkranz; Izukanji Sikazwe; Charles B Holmes; Carolyn Bolton-Moore; Elvin H Geng Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Peter Ehrenkranz; Sydney Rosen; Andrew Boulle; Jeffrey W Eaton; Nathan Ford; Matthew P Fox; Anna Grimsrud; Brian D Rice; Izukanji Sikazwe; Charles B Holmes Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-05-24 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Jake M Pry; Kombatende Sikombe; Aaloke Mody; Shilpa Iyer; Jacob Mutale; Natalie Vlahakis; Theodora Savory; Mwanza Wa Mwanza; Keith Mweebo; Annie Mwila; Consity Mwale; Mpande Mukumbwa-Mwenechanya; Andrew D Kerkhoff; Izukanji Sikazwe; Carolyn Bolton Moore; Daniel Mwamba; Elvin H Geng; Michael E Herce Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2022-01
Authors: Laura K Beres; Aaloke Mody; Kombatende Sikombe; Lauren Hersch Nicholas; Sheree Schwartz; Ingrid Eshun-Wilson; Paul Somwe; Sandra Simbeza; Jake M Pry; Paul Kaumba; John McGready; Charles B Holmes; Carolyn Bolton-Moore; Izukanji Sikazwe; Julie A Denison; Elvin H Geng Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 6.707
Authors: Chanda Mwamba; Laura K Beres; Stephanie M Topp; Njekwa Mukamba; Sandra Simbeza; Kombatende Sikombe; Aaloke Mody; Elvin Geng; Charles B Holmes; Caitlin E Kennedy; Izukanji Sikazwe; Julie A Denison; Carolyn Bolton Moore Journal: Ann Med Date: 2022-12 Impact factor: 4.709
Authors: Narda Medina; Juan Luis Rodriguez-Tudela; Juan Carlos Pérez; Danicela Mercado; Oscar Bonilla; Eduardo Arathoon; Ana Alastruey-Izquierdo Journal: Microorganisms Date: 2022-07-10