HIV and antiretroviral treatment knowledge gaps and psychosocial burden among persons living with HIV in Lima, Peru.

This study aims to describe knowledge on HIV and antiretroviral (ARV) treatment and psychosocial factors among people living with HIV (PLWH) in Lima, Perú, to explore characteristics associated to this knowledge, and determine its impact on sustained viral suppression. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 171 PLWH at the largest referral health care center in Lima. The psychosocial factors measured were depression, risk of alcoholism, use of illegal drugs and disclosure. A participant had "poor knowledge" when less than 80% of replies were correct. Sustained viral suppression was defined as two consecutive viral loads under 50 copies/mL. A total of 49% and 43% had poor HIV and ARV knowledge respectively; 48% of the study population screened positive for depression and 27% reported feeling unsupported by the person they disclosed to. The largest gaps in HIV and ARV knowledge were among 98 (57%) that did not recognize that HIV increased the risk of cancer and among 57 (33%) participants that did not disagree with the statement that taking a double dose of ARV if they missed one. Moderate depression was significantly associated to poor HIV and ARV knowledge. Non-disclosure and being on ARVs for less than 6 months were associated with not achieving sustained viral suppression. Our findings highlight important HIV and ARV knowledge gaps of PLWH and a high burden of psychosocial problems, especially of depression, among PLWH in Lima, Peru. Increasing knowledge and addressing depression and disclosure could improve care of PLWH.

Introduction

HIV treatment expansion has resulted in a 51% decline in AIDS-related deaths globally from 2004 to 2017 [1]. However, HIV remains the second cause of death from an infectious disease with 1.8 million new HIV infections in 2017 [1]. The UNAIDS Fast Track strategy proposes ending the AIDS epidemic by 2030 by increasing coverage of tested, treated and virally suppressed, to reach 95% of all persons living with HIV, decreasing new infections to 200 000 among adults and zero discrimination [2].

The key for HIV control is sustained viral suppression by ensuring adherence to antiretrovirals (ARV) as detectable viral loads are associated with increased transmission, morbimortality and drug resistance. Health related knowledge and health literacy increase adherence to ARV and empower persons to participate in their own care [3,4]. Yet, significant gaps on knowledge on HIV transmission and treatment among people living with HIV (PLWH) have been described [5-8]. Knowledge is only one of the determinants of adherence to antiretrovirals [9,10]. Poor mental health including depression, substance abuse and heavy alcohol consumption have also been recognized as barriers to care in PLWH and are associated with low adherence, unsuppressed viremia disease progression, and mortality among PLWH [11-14].

In Lima, Peru, although the level of HIV related knowledge among PLWH has not been quantified in this context, some studies shed a light on health information and outcomes among PLWH. In a study in Lima, 77% of PLWH said that they understood all information given by the doctors [15] and a qualitative study in Piura, Peru concluded that PLWH on ARV have important misconceptions on HIV transmission and treatment and maintain sexual behaviors that can facilitate HIV transmission [16].

We conducted this study to quantify HIV and ARV knowledge among PLWH attending the largest HIV referral center in Lima, and to analyze the association of demographic characteristics and psychosocial factors -specifically depression, disclosure and substance abuse–to the level of knowledge. Finally, we analyzed the impact of HIV and ARV knowledge on viral suppression controlling for psychosocial factors that could also affect viral suppression.

Materials and methods

Ethical considerations

The Institutional Review Boards of Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia and Hospital Cayetano Heredia approved the study protocol. Linking of the study database and the hospital databases was done with a unique numeric ID. All study researchers were certified in responsible conduct of research. All participants in this study provided a written consent to participate to the study, after explanation of the risks and benefits of participation of this study.

Study design, setting and population

By 2016, there were 66 907 PLWH notified in Peru [17]. We conducted a cross-sectional study at the HIV program of a tertiary hospital in Lima, with a catchment area of 2,682,608 inhabitants and which provides care to the largest number of PLWH in Peru [18]. Participants were considered eligible if they were PLWH over 18 years old, registered in the hospital HIV program and able to provide written consent.

Study procedures

Eligible participants were invited to participate while waiting for routine blood sampling for viral load measurements, between November 2016 and July 2017. Those consenting were requested to answer the self-administered paper-based questionnaire, which included 18 multiple-choice questions: eleven on HIV knowledge and seven on ARV knowledge. HIV and ARV knowledge were analyzed separately since we hypothesized that they could be influenced differently by psychosocial factors, their association with viral suppression could be independent, and two previous study have studied both separately [6,8]. Questions to measure knowledge were developed based on two published surveys [6,8], and in consultation with infectious diseases clinicians and nurses providing HIV care. To determine clarity, any potential discomfort or alternative responses, the questionnaire was tested with six PLWH. The questionnaire also included 14 questions on psychosocial factors (the standardized Mental Health Inventory-5 (MHI5) scale [19] for depression, the CAGE questionnaire for risk of alcoholism [20], illegal drug consumption, disclosure and perception of support by the disclosed ones) as potential determinants of knowledge and of not achieving sustained viral suppression. Six other potential determinants (age, sex, educational and marital status, time from enrollment in the HIV program and time since ARV initiation) and viral load measurements were extracted from the hospital records.

Data management and analysis

Data was entered in an Access database and analyzed using Stata v15. We calculated percentages for categorical variables and median and interquartile ranges for continuous variables of participant´s demographics, psychosocial factors and HIV and ARV knowledge. Both knowledge questionnaires were scored according to importance and implications of the knowledge addressed by infectious diseases clinicians and nurses. Each correct answer in the HIV knowledge section received 0.25 points (maximum score = 2.75). Four questions on ARV knowledge received one point and three received 0.25 points for correct answers (maximum score = 4.75). We defined “good knowledge” when 80% or more of the maximum score was obtained, and “poor knowledge” when less than 80%.

Sustained viral suppression was defined as having two consecutive viral loads with less than 50 cop/mL in a period of 12 months, we used the viral load measured on the enrollment day and the most proximate within 6 months after or before the survey.

To study the variables associated with three outcomes: poor HIV knowledge, poor ARV knowledge and not achieving sustained viral suppression we used Poisson regression to calculate prevalence ratios in the bivariate and multivariate analysis. For the multivariate analysis we included variables with a p value <0.2 in the bivariate analysis and we used backwards elimination: variables with the weakest association to the dependent variable were taken off one to one until a significant difference with the previous model was found by likelihood ratio test.

To study the determinants of poor HIV and ARV knowledge, we included factors that could be associated with poor knowledge: sociodemographic factors (sex, age, marital status and educational status), psychosocial factors (depression, disclosure, perception of support from the person to whom they had disclosed, risk of alcoholism, use of illegal drugs), time from enrollment to the HIV program and the study interview and time on ARVs. Finally, to study the role of HIV and ARV knowledge on not achieving sustained viral suppression we included PLWH who were on ARV and who had the two viral load measurements available and controlled for the factors mentioned above.

Results

Study population and participant’s characteristics

Of 255 eligible participants, 205 were enrolled, 171 completed more than 50% of the knowledge section of the survey and thus were included in the analysis of HIV and ARV knowledge. Of the 171 participants, 152 (88.9%) had two viral load measurements available and were included in the analysis for sustained viral suppression (Fig 1). Of the participants included, 121/171 (70.8%) were male, the median age was 36 (IQR 28–44). A total of 47 (27.5%), were married or cohabiting, 5 (2.9%) divorced, 108 (63.2%) single and 11 (6.4%) widowers. Eighty-five (49.7%) participants completed high school, 12 (7.0%) primary school and 74 (43.3%) university/technical studies. The median time between participants’ enrollment in the HIV program and the study interview was 4.0 years (IQR, 1.6–7.6) and the median time between ARV start date and the interview was 3.2 years (IQR 1.1–6.4). Ten (5.8%) participants were not on ARV.

Fig 1

Study population, people living with HIV in a referral center in Lima, Peru, 2016–2017.

Psychosocial factors

Of 171 PLWH, 154 (90.1%) reported disclosure of their HIV diagnosis, 6 (3.5%) did not disclose and 11 (6.4%) did not reply. Of the 154 patients who disclosed their HIV status, 112 (72.7%) felt supported at least by someone they disclosed to and 42 (27.3%) by no one. According to the MHI5 questionnaire, 72/171 (42.1%) were not depressed, 29/171 (17.0%) were mild depressed, 32/171 (18.7%) were moderately depressed, 21/171 (12.3%) were severely depressed and 17/171 (9.9%) did not reply. On the CAGE questionnaire, 123/171 (71.9%) PLWH were not at risk of alcoholism, 20 (11.7%) were at risk of alcoholism and 28/171 (16.4%) did not answer. Regarding use of illicit drugs 143/171 (83.6%) replied that they had never used drugs, 11/171 (6.4%) PLWH reported ongoing drug use, 12/171 (7.0%) reported using it in the past and 5/171 (2.9%) did not answer.

HIV and ARV knowledge

The median score on general HIV knowledge among 171 participants was 2.25 (IQR 1.75–2.5) and on ARV knowledge was 4 (IQR 3–4.75). Eighty-three participants (48.5%) had poor HIV knowledge and 74 (43.3%) poor ARV knowledge. The largest gap in HIV knowledge was among 98 (57.3%) that did not reply correctly that HIV increased the risk of cancer and among 90 (52.6%) that did not disagree with “The use of microbicides during sex avoids HIV transmission” (Table 1). The largest gap in ARV knowledge was among 30 (17.5%) who agreed with “If I forget to take my ARV, I can make up for it by taking a double dose the following day” and among 23 (13.5%) who believed that large amounts of alcohol does not interfere with ARV (Table 1).

Table 1

Knowledge on HIV and ARV, among people living with HIV in a referral center in Lima, Peru, 2016–2017 (N = 171).

	Correct	Incorrect	Does not know	Do not answer
Knowledge on HIV
Is HIV an illness that can be cured or controlled?	150 (87.7)	8 (4.7)	11 (6.4)	2 (1.2)
A PLWH can live the same number of years as a person not infected?	126 (73.7)	12 (7.0)	27 (15.8)	6 (3.5)
I must use a condom in any sexual relation with a person without HIV	156 (91.2)	7 (4.1)	7 (4.1)	1 (0.6)
I am at risk of another infection if I have sex with a PLWH without using a condom	136 (79.5)	21 (12.3)	11 (6.4)	3 (1.8)
I have to use condom if I have sex with a PLWH.	138 (80.7)	15 (8.8)	15 (8.8)	3 (1.8)
The use of microbicides during sex avoids HIV transmission	81 (47.4)	28 (16.4)	57 (33.3)	5 (2.9)
If I use condoms correctly I will have safe sex	149 (87.1)	11 (6.4)	8 (4.7)	3 (1.8)
HIV infection places me at higher risk of
Cancer	74 (43.3)	31 (18.1)	63 (36.3)	4 (2.3)
Sexually transmitted infections	121 (70.8)	15 (8.8)	33 (19.3)	2 (1.2)
Diarrhea	133 (77.8)	14 (8.2)	20 (11.7)	4 (2.3)
Dental problems	83 (48.5)	30 (17.5)	53 (31.0)	5 (2.9)
Knowledge on ARV
The following substances interfere with ARV
Large amounts of alcohol	117 (68.4)	23 (13.5)	18 (10.5	13 (7.6)
Marijuana	113 (66.1)	20 (11.7)	27 (15.8)	11 (6.4)
Cocaine	127 (74.3)	15 (8.8)	17 (9.9)	12 (7.0)
While I am on ARV, I do not transmit HIV	136 (79.5)	19 (11.1)	14 (8.2)	2 (1.2)
If I forget to take my ARV, I can make up for it by taking a double dose the following day	114 (66.7)	30 (17.5)	24 (14.0)	3 (1.8)
If I am feeling ok, I can discontinue ARV	147 (86.0)	8 (4.7)	14 (8.2)	2 (1.2)
It is important to discontinue ARV for a few days to rest the body	141 (82.5)	14 (8.2)	14 (8.2)	2 (1.2)

Determinants of HIV and ARV knowledge

Tables 2 and 3 show the bivariate and multivariate analysis of the demographic and psychosocial characteristics associated with HIV and ARV knowledge, respectively. Age 44 years old or more, moderate depression, receiving ARV <0.5 years and receiving ARV for 0.5–1 years were significantly associated with poor HIV knowledge in the bivariate and multivariate analysis. Single participants were less likely to have poor HIV knowledge. Moderate depression and not replying to the survey on depression, were associated to poor ARV knowledge in the bivariate and multivariate analysis. In the bivariate analysis, we found a possible interaction effect between sex and use of illegal drugs and between depression and age, but had insufficient power to test in the multivariate analysis.

Table 2

Bivariate and multivariate analysis of determinants of knowledge on HIV among people living with HIV in a referral center in Lima, Peru, 2016–2017 (N = 171).

	Bivariate analysis				Multivariate analysis
	Good HIV knowledgea	Poor HIV knowledgea	PR Crude (95%CI)	P value	Adjusted PR (95%CI)	P value
Age group
18–27	25 (61.0)	16 (39.0)	1		1
28–36	25 (55.6)	20 (44.4)	1.1 (0.7–1.9)	0.61	1.1 (0.7–1.9)	0.68
37–43	24 (57.1)	18 (42.9)	1.1 (0.7–1.8)	0.72	1.3 (0.7–2.2)	0.43
≥44	14 (32.6)	29 (67.4)	1.7 (1.1–2.7)	0.01	1.6 (1.1–2.6)	0.034
Sex
Male	68 (56.2)	53 (43.8)	1		1
Female	20 (40.0)	30 (60.0)	1.4 (1.01–1.9)	0.04	1.0 (0.7–1.4)	0.93
Marital Status
Married or Cohabiting	15 (31.9)	32 (68.1)	1		1
Divorced	3 (60.0)	2 (40.0)	0.6 (0.2–1.8)	0.34	0.5 (0.2–1.5)	0.21
Single	65 (60.2)	43 (39.8)	0.6 (0.4–0.8)	<0.01	0.7 (0.5–0.9)	0.02
Widowers	5 (45.5)	6 (54.5)	0.8 (0.5–1.4)	0.45	0.9 (0.4–1.8)	0.75
Educational status
Primary School	6 (50.0)	6 (50.0)	0.9 (0.5–1.7)	0.80	b	b
High School	39 (45.9)	46 (54.1)	1
Superior Education	43 (58.1)	31 (41.9)	0.8 (0.6–1.1)	0.13
Mental health scale by MHI-5
Not Depressed	43 (59.7)	29 (40.3)	1		1
Mild Depressed	17 (58.6)	12 (41.4)	1.0 (0.6–1.7)	0.91	1.0 (0.6–1.6)	0.98
Moderate Depressed	9 (28.1)	23 (71.9)	1.8 (1.2–2.5)	<0.01	1.7 (1.2–2.5)	<0.01
Severe Depressed	10 (47.6)	11 (52.4)	1.3 (0.8–2.1)	0.30	1.3 (0.8–2.1)	0.26
Did not answer	9 (52.9)	8 (47.1)	1.2 (0.7–2.1)	0.60	1.3 (0.7–2.3)	0.43
Alcoholism screening risk by CAGE
No Abuse	62 (50.4)	61 (49.6)	1		b	b
Risk Abuse	9 (45.0)	11 (55.0)	1.1 (0.7–1.7)	0.64
Did not answer	17 (60.7)	11 (39.3)	0.8 (0.5–1.3)	0.36
Use of illegal drugs
Used in the past	3 (25.0)	9 (75.0)	1.6 (1.1–2.3)	0.02	b	b
Sometimes	6 (54.5)	5 (45.5)	1.0 (0.5–1.9)	0.33
Never used	75 (52.4)	68 (47.6)	1
Did not answer	4 (80.0)	1 (20.0)	0.4 (0.1–2.5)	0.89
Disclosure of HIV diagnosis
At least to someone	78 (50.6)	76 (49.4)	1		b	b
No one	4 (66.7)	2 (33.3)	0.7 (0.2–2.1)	0.50
Did not answer	6 (54.5)	5 (45.5)	0.9 (0.5–1.8)	0.81
Self-perception of support among those disclosing
Supported by someone	56 (50.0)	56 (50.0)	1		b	b
Supported by no one	22 (52.4)	20 (47.6)	1.0 (0.7–1.4)	0.80
Did not disclosed	4 (66.7)	2 (33.3)	0.7 (0.2–2.1)	0.49
Did not answer	6 (54.6)	5 (45.5)	0.9 (0.5–1.8)	0.78
Time from enrollment to the HIV program and the study interview (in years)
0–0.5	7 (50.0)	7 (50.0)	0.9 (0.2–3.9)	0.53	b	b
0.51–1.5	11 (44.0)	14 (56.0)	1.0 (0.3–3.1)	0.30
1.51–4.0	23 (47.9)	25 (52.1)	1.2 (0.5–3.0)	0.23
4.01–8.6	25 (53.2)	22 (46.8)	1.0 (0.4–2.8)	0.53
>8.6	22 (59.5)	15 (40.5)	1
Time from ARV and the study interview (in years)
No ARV	6 (60.0)	4 (40.0)	1.4 (0.6–3.1)	0.93	1.4 (0.6–3.1)	0.43
<0.5	5 (33.3)	10 (66.7)	1.9 (1.1–3.4)	0.08	1.9 (1.1–3.4)	0.03
0.51–1.5	11 (39.3)	17 (60.7)	2.1 (1.2–3.6)	0.12	2.1 (1.2–3.6)	<0.01
1.51–3.5	26 (54.2)	22 (45.8)	1.5 (0.9–2.8)	0.55	1.5 (0.9–2.8)	0.14
3.51–6.5	24 (54.5)	20 (45.5)	1.4 (0.8–2.4)	0.58	1.4 (0.8–2.4)	0.29
>6.51	16 (61.5)	10 (38.5)	1		1

MHI-5: Mental Health Inventory-5 ARVs: Antiretroviral.

aEach question received a 0.25 score for a correct answer. Incorrect answers, does not know or does not answer gave 0 points. The maximum possible score was 2.75. We defined “good knowledge” when ≥80% of the maximum score was obtained, and “poor knowledge” if < 80%.

bomitted because of collinearity.

Table 3

Bivariate and multivariate analysis of determinants of antiretroviral (ARV) knowledge, among people living with HIV in a referral center in Lima, Peru, 2016–2017 (N = 171).

	Bivariate analysis				Multivariate analysis
	Good ARV knowledgea	Poor ARV knowledgea	PR Crude (95%CI)	P value	Adjusted PR (95%CI)	P value
Age groups
18–27	29 (70.7)	12 (29.3)	1		1
28–36	27 (60.0)	18 (40.0)	1.4 (0.8–2.5)	0.31	1.3 (0.8–2.3)	0.29
37–43	22 (52.4)	20 (47.6)	1.6 (0.9–2.9)	0.10	1.6 (0.9–2.8)	0.09
≥44	19 (44.2)	24 (55.8)	1.9 (1.1–3.3)	0.02	1.6 (0.9–2.6)	0.09
Sex
Male	73 (60.3)	48 (39.7)	1		b	b
Female	24 (48.0)	26 (52.0)	1.3 (0.9–1.9)	0.13
Marital Status
Married or Cohabiting	22 (46.8)	25 (53.2)	1		1
Divorced	2 (40.0)	3 (60.0)	1.1 (0.5–2.4)	0.76	1.1 (0.5–2.3)	0.87
Single	70 (64.8)	38 (35.2)	0.7 (0.5–1.0)	0.03	0.8 (0.5–1.1)	0.14
Widowers	3 (27.3)	8 (72.7)	1.4 (0.9–2.1)	0.18	1.2 (0.8–1.9)	0.42
Educational status
Primary School	5 (41.2)	7 (58.3)	1.1 (0.7–1.9)	0.72	b	b
High School	40 (47.1)	45 (52.9)	1
Technical/university education	52 (70.3)	22 (29.7)	0.6 (0.4–0.8)	<0.01
Mental health scale by MHI-5
Not Depressed	50 (69.4)	22 (30.6)	1		1
Mild Depressed	20 (69.0)	9 (31.0)	1.0 (0.5–1.9)	0.96	0.9 (0.5–1.8)	0.79
Moderate Depressed	8 (25.75)	24 (75.0)	2.5 (1.6–3.6)	<0.01	2.0 (1.4–3.0)	<0.01
Severe Depressed	13 (61.9)	8 (38.1)	1.2 (0.7–2.4)	0.51	1.1 (0.6–2.1)	0.69
Did not answer	6 (35.3)	11 (64.7)	2.1 (1.3–3.5)	<0.01	1.8 (1.1–2.9)	0.02
Alcoholism screening risk by CAGE
No Abuse	70 (56.9)	53 (43.1)	1		b	b
Risk Abuse	10 (50.0)	10 (50.0)	1.2 (0.7–1.8)	0.55
Did not answer	17 (60.7)	11 (39.3)	0.9 (0.6–1.5)	0.72
Use of illegal drugs
Used in the past	5 (41.7)	7 (58.3)	1.4 (0.8–2.3)	0.73	b	b
Sometime	7 (63.6)	4 (36.4)	0.9 (0.4–1.9)	0.21
Never used	83 (58.0)	60 (42.0)	1
Did not answer	2 (40.0)	3 (60.0)	1.4 (0.7–3.0)	0.35
Disclosure of HIV diagnosis
At least to someone	88 (57.1)	66 (42.9)	1		b	b
No one	3 (50.0)	3 (50.0)	1.2 (0.5–2.7)	0.71
Did not answer	6 (54.5)	5 (45.5)	1.1 (0.5–2.1)	0.86
Self-perception of support among those disclosed
Supported by someone	63 (56.3)	49 (43.8)	1		b	b
Supported by no one	25 (59.5)	17 (40.5)	0.9 (0.6–1.4)	0.72
Did not disclosed	3 (50.0)	3 (50.0)	1.1 (0.5–2.6)	0.75
Did not answer	6 (54.5)	5 (45.4)	1.0 (0.5–2.1)	0.91
Time from ARV and the study interview (in years)
No ARV	5 (50.0)	5 (50.0)	1.3 (0.6–3.0)	0.52	b	b
0–0.5	6 (40.0)	9 (60.0)	1.6 (0.8–3.0)	0.17
0.51–1.5	18 (64.3)	10 (35.7)	0.9 (0.5–1.9)	0.84
1.51–3.5	29 (60.4)	19 (39.6)	1.0 (0.6–2.0)	0.93
3.51–6.5	23 (52.3)	21 (47.7)	1.2 (0.7–2.3)	0.46
>6.51	16 (61.5)	10 (38.5)	1
Time from enrollment to the HIV program and the study interview (in years)
0–0.5	4 (28.6)	10 (71.4)	1.9 (1.1–3.2)	0.02	b	b
0.51–1.5	17 (68.0)	8 (32.0)	0.8 (0.4–1.7)	0.64
1.51–4.0	27 (56.3)	21 (43.8)	1.2 (0.7–2.0)	0.59
4.01–8.6	26 (55.3)	21 (44.7)	1.2 (0.7–2.0)	0.53
>8.61	23 (62.2)	14 (37.8)	1

MHI-5: Mental Health Inventory-5 ARVs: Antiretrovirals.

a Four of the seven questions on ARV knowledge received one point and three received 0.25 points, for a correct answer. Incorrect answers, does not know or does not answer gave 0 points. The maximum score for this section was 4.75.

b omitted because of collinearity.

Determinants of not achieving sustained viral suppression

Among 152 participants who were on ARV and who had two viral loads available, 62 (40.8%) did not achieve sustained viral suppression. The bivariate and multivariate analysis of the association of HIV and ARV knowledge and potential determinants of not achieving sustained viral suppression are shown in Table 4. In the bivariate analyses, moderate depression was associated with not achieving sustained viral suppression, this association did not remain in the multivariate analysis. Non-disclosure and being on ARV less than 0.5 years were associated with not achieving sustained viral suppression in the bivariate and multivariate analysis.

Table 4

Bivariate and multivariate analysis of determinants of not achieving sustained viral suppression among people living with HIV in a referral center in Lima, Peru, 2016–2017 (N = 152).

	Bivariate analysis				Multivariate analysis
	Sustained viral suppression	Not sustained viral suppression	PR Crude (95%CI)	P value	Adjusted PR (95%CI)	P value
Knowledge on HIV
Good	45(60.0)	30(40.0)	1		-	-
Poor	45(58.4)	32(41.6)	1.0 (0.7–1.5)	0.85
ARVs Knowledge
Good	55(65.5)	29(34.5)	1		1
Poor	35(51.5)	33(48.5)	1.4 (0.9–2.1)	0.08	1.5 (0.8–1.7)	0.47
Age Group
18–27	17(51.5)	16(48.5)	1		-	-
28–36	24(58.5)	17(41.5)	0.9 (0.5–1.4)	0.55
37–43	26(66.7)	13(33.3)	0.7 (0.4–1.2)	0.20
> = 44	23(59.0)	16(41.0)	0.8 (0.5–1.4)	0.52
Sex
Male	65(60.2)	43(39.8)	1		-	-
Female	25(56.8)	19(43.2)	1.1 (0.7–1.6)	0.70
Marital Status
Married or Cohabiting	27(61.4)	17(38.6)	1		-	-
Divorced	3(60.0)	2(40.0)	1.0 (0.3–3.2)	0.95
Single	52(56.5)	40(43.5)	1.1 (0.7–1.7)	0.60
Widowers	8(72.7)	3(27.3)	0.7 (0.3–2.0)	0.51
Educational status
Primary School	6(75.0)	2(25.0)	0.6 (0.2–1.9)	0.34	-	-
High School	42(54.6)	35(45.5)	1
University	42(62.7)	25(37.3)	0.8 (0.6–1.2)	0.33
Mental health scale by MHI-5
Not Depressed	41(66.1)	21(33.9)	1		1
Mild Depressed	17(68.0)	8(32.0)	0.9 (0.4–1.8)	0.87	0.9 (0.5–1.6)	0.67
Moderate Depressed	13(43.3)	17(56.7)	1.7 (1.0–2.7)	0.03	1.5 (0.9–2.4)	0.12
Severe Depressed	9(45.0)	11(55.0)	1.6 (0.9–2.8)	0.07	1.5 (0.9–2.5)	0.12
Did not answer	10(66.7)	5(33.3)	1.0 (0.4–2.2)	0.69	1.0 (0.4–2.2)	0.96
Alcoholism screening risk by CAGE
No Abuse	64(59.8)	43(40.2)	1		-	-
Risk of Abuse	8(40.0)	12(60.0)	1.5 (1.0–2.3)	0.06
Did not answer	18(72.0)	7(28.0)	0.7 (0.4–1.4)	0.29
Use of illegal drugs
Used in the past	6(50.0)	6(50.0)	1.0 (0.4–2.2)	0.43	-	-
Sometimes	6(60.0)	4(40.0)	1.2 (0.7–2.2)	0.51
Never used	74(59.2)	51(40.8)	1
Did not answer	4(80.0)	1(20.0)	0.5 (0.1–2.9)	0.96
Disclosure of HIV diagnosis
At least to someone	82(59.9)	55(40.2)	1		1	-
No one	1(20.0)	4(80.0)	2.0 (1.2–3.2)	0.01	1.8 (1.2–2.9)	<0.01
Did not answer	7(70.0)	3(30.0)	0.7 (0.3–2.0)	0.56	0.8 (0.3–2.0)	0.61
Self-perception of support among those disclosing
Supported by someone	55(56.7)	42(43.3)	1		-	-
Supported by no one	27(67.5)	13 (32.5)	0.8 (0.5–1.2)	0.26
Did not disclosed	1(20.0)	4(80.0)	1.8 (1.1–3.0)	0.02
Did not answer	7(70.0)	3(30.0)	0.7 (0.3–1.8)	0.46
Time from ARV and the study interview (in years)
<0.5	3 (20.0)	12 (80.0)	2.9 (1.5–5.6)	<0.01	2.6 (1.3–5.2)	<0.01
0.51–1.5	17(68.0)	8(32.0)	1.1 (0.5–2.7)	0.76	1.1 (0.5–2.5)	0.87
1.51–3.5	27(61.4)	17(38.6)	1.4 (0.7–2.9)	0.39	1.3 (0.6–2.7)	0.50
3.51–6.5	25 (58.1)	18 (41.9)	1.5 (0.7–3.1)	0.28	1.5 (0.7–3.0)	0.28
>6.51	18 (72.0)	7 (28.0)	1		1

MHI-5: Mental Health Inventory-5 ARVs: Antiretrovirals.

Discussion

Among PLWHA attending a referral center in Lima, up to a quarter had gaps in key knowledge on HIV and ARV and 41% had not achieved sustained viral suppression. We also found a high burden of psychosocial problems: 48% of study participants screened positive for any grade of depression and 27% reported feeling unsupported by the person they disclosed to. Moderate depression was associated to poor HIV and ARV knowledge. Non-disclosure was associated with not achieving sustained viral suppression.

In general, HIV and ARV knowledge was high in our study; however, a quarter of the study population had knowledge gaps that could impact HIV care and transmission: 9% believed that they should not use a condom in sexual contact with other PLWH and 12% said that sex with another PLWH does not pose a risk of other infections. Considering that serosorting (choosing a sexual partner that is also living with HIV) is common among PLWH, our result highlights knowledge gaps that might affect this practice [7]. It is important to note, this study was implemented before the launch of the UNAIDS undetectable = untransmittable campaign [21]. The question with the lowest proportion of participants replying correctly was on the knowledge of the higher risk of cancer posed by HIV infection. In Nigeria, poor knowledge on AIDS defining cancers among PLWH has also been described and few participants had undergone cancer screening and they attributed this to the lack of knowledge of its benefits [22]. Further research should test strategies to increase knowledge about their risk of cancer and to increase compliance to screening practices to reduce cancer mortality among PLWH.

We found gaps on ARV knowledge, such as 18% of the population that thought they could make up a missed dose of ARV by taking a double dose the next day. In our study, 8% considered the statement “It is important to discontinue ARV for a few days to rest the body” correct, as compared to 34% of low income latino PLWH in Los Angeles in 2003 [6]; these studies were conducted 15 years apart and even though our populations had a better knowledge, the presence of this beliefs can impact HIV spread and treatment. In our study 86% of participants disagreed with the statement “If I am feeling ok, I can discontinue ARV” which is similar to a 2012 study in Nigeria, where 92% disagreed with the statement: “You should take ARVs only when you feel sick” [8]. It is worrying that some patients, albeit few, do not know the importance of consistent adherence to ARVs.

Depression may affect our ability to understand a disease [23,24]. Depression is a barrier to care and is associated with lower adherence to ARV [25,26]. High frequency of depression among PLWH have been reported in Lima: 68% among HIV-positive impoverished women [27] and 48% among patients with HIV and TB [28]; both studies used the Hopkins Symptoms checklist. In a study using the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire depressed HIV patients had a significantly lower quality of life than their no depressed counterparts [29]. In Chile, PLWH with moderate-severe depressive symptoms had three times higher risk of non-adherence compared to patients with mild to no depressive symptoms [30]. The prevalence of depression in 2012 among adults in the general population of Lima, Peru was estimated 17.2% measured with the Mini Mental State Examination [31]. Our study highlights a high frequency of depression (48%) and its role as a determinant of HIV and ARV knowledge in PLWH at a referral center in Lima, which reveals an urgent need to develop interventions to address depression among them. A meta-analysis suggested short-term improvements in depression and a significant reduction in viral load with cognitive behavioral therapy, while another meta-analysis suggested that pharmacological interventions were more effective [32,33]. Finally, during the study Peruvian guidelines for first line ARV included efavirenz, which has been associated with severe depression, suicidal ideation and nonfatal suicide attempts [34-36].

The proportion of PLWH that had disclosed their HIV status in our study was high and similar to that reported in a global study among 2035 PLWH where 96% had disclosed and the pooled proportion for Latin America was 92% [37]. In our study non-disclosure was found to be associated with not achieving sustained viral suppression. The relationship between disclosure, adherence and viral suppression remains poorly understood. In a meta-analysis, eleven of seventeen studies reported a positive finding between disclosure and ARV adherence [38]. In a qualitative study in Peru the fear of disclosure was recognized by PLWH as a barrier to adherence to ARV [39]. Disclosure supposedly increases social support, which allows PLWH to cope with health and drug use [40]. However due to HIV-related stigma, disclosure might affect negatively ARV adherence [38] and it has been proposed that rather than promoting disclosure, programs should create supportive environments for PLWH, which might have more of an impact on adherence [41]. In our study 27% reported feeling unsupported by the person they disclosed. Disclosure to supportive persons should be encouraged among PLWH and studies should focus on understanding its association with retention in care.

The 12% risk or high risk of alcoholism found in our study is lower compared to studies among PLWH using the same questionnaire: in Boston, 42% PLWH had a risk or high risk of alcoholism, however, the study selected patients with higher pretest risk [42]. Another study, found that 43% of HIV-infected Peruvian MSM and transgender women had alcohol use disorders and 5% had alcohol dependence using the AUDIT test; both were inversely related to optimal ARV adherence [43]. The CAGE and AUDIT scores have the same sensitivity [44]. In the general population older than 15 years in Peru, 22% report excessive alcohol consumption [45]. Alcohol consumption and substance abuse have been associated to low adherence to ARV and to unsuppressed viremia [9,46].

Forty-one percent did not reach sustained viral suppression. This percentage is lower than the national estimates in which 63% have not achieved viral suppression, defined as <1000 cop/mL [47]. Our study included persons attending a referral hospital and thus we did not include patients not retained in care. Two studies conducted in the same hospital than this study found similar percentages of unsuppressed viremia: one found that 24% had a detectable viral load (defined as a single viral load above 1000 copies/mL including patients with at least 24 weeks on ARV) [48], the other study found that 40% of PLWH had a single detectable viral load (defined as having an viral load above 200 copies/mL within the first year of enrolment in HIV programs) [49]. The two factors associated with not achieving sustained viral suppression were non-disclosure and being on ARVs less than 0.5 years. The association between being on ARVs less than 0.5 years and not achieving sustained viral suppression was expected, since most patients achieve viral suppression after six months of ARVs [50,51].

Our study has several limitations and strengths. The questionnaire to measure HIV and ARV knowledge was not formally validated. However, it was based on validated surveys and questionnaires, developed in consultation with HIV experts and we performed a pilot study to address any misunderstanding. By enrolling participants at the hospital waiting room for their viral load measures we might have overestimated knowledge; since our population did not include PLWH not retained in care. It is estimated that in the study hospital, between 53% and 57% of PLWH are retained in care after one year of entering the HIV Program [52]. Therefore, our results cannot be extrapolated to all the PLWH population but to that retained in care in Lima hospitals. PLWH that accepted to participate in our study may have been more educated than those not participating, since the former might have felt more comfortable replying to a questionnaire on knowledge. However, 43% study participants had completed high school which is comparable with the proportion in Lima (48%) [53]. The strength of our study is that, in addition to measuring knowledge, we surveyed several psychosocial issues that can be key for adherence and viral suppression. Our results allow the generation of several hypotheses related to knowledge, adherence and psychosocial factors among PLWH that can be tested in future studies. For example, if early identification and treatment of depression and encouraging disclosure may increase adherence.

Peruvian guidelines on HIV management recommend that doctors, nurses and a psychologist, should guide PLWH in their care and provide knowledge on HIV treatment and transmission [35]. In 2017, after the study conclusion, a psychiatrist was appointed to the HIV program. We suggest continuing prioritizing access to psychological evaluation and support especially in the identification and management of depression. We also suggest that the burden of other mental disorders and their impact on retention in care among PLWH should be quantified.

This study highlights important gaps in HIV and ARV knowledge and a high burden of psychosocial problems, especially of depression, among PLHW attending HIV care at a referral hospital. Addressing psychosocial factors that may be modified by health interventions, such as depression and disclosure could improve the quality of life among PLWH in Lima and improve HIV specific outcomes. Finally, our findings suggest, that it is necessary to develop interventions to address HIV and ARV knowledge gaps that could impact HIV transmission and treatment success in PLWH in Lima. Larger studies addressing the determinants of HIV and ARV knowledge and factors associated to HIV could test hypotheses resulting from our findings.

Score used to quantify knowledge on HIV and on ARV.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Study database.

(DTA)

Click here for additional data file.

20 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-01332

HIV and antiretroviral treatment knowledge gaps and psychosocial burden among persons living with HIV in Lima, Peru

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Paredes,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The manuscript has been evaluated by two reviewers, and their comments are available below.

The reviewers have raised a number of major concerns. Specifically, they request significant improvements to the reporting of methodological aspects of the study, as well as further elaboration on the rationale for the study. They also request clarity to some aspects of the results reported.

Could you please carefully revise the manuscript to address all comments raised?

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 03 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Avanti Dey, PhD

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: A well-written paper that provides information about the levels of knowledge of HIV and ARV treatment as well as the prevalence of psycho-social factors among consenting PLWH waiting for viral load measurement at the waiting room of a tertiary healthcare institution in Lima, Peru. To further improve the paper quality the following are suggested,

1. The title should be revised to include the fact that the participants were consenting PLWH at the waiting room of the hospital for viral load measurement. This is necessary as there is no sample size estimation and the representativeness as well as the generalisability of the findings are questionable.

2. The rationale for this work needs to be further clarified. The authors mentioned that the level of HIV related knowledge among PLWH has not been quantified, but cited studies that indicated that PLWH understood all information given by their doctors. Besides, qualitative studies on HIV transmission reveals that misconception on HIV transmission exists. The authors should indicate the gap in knowledge that this study was out to bridge.

3. The authors recognised the importance of adherence to ARV as a key to sustained viral suppression in HIV control in their introduction yet did not measure this important variable by any means from the participants in the study. It would have been good to know the role of adherence as a potential confounder or middle variable in the association between viral suppression and knowledge or psychosocial factors.

4. The aspect of the paper which sought to analyse and proved information about the "impact of HIV and ARV knowledge on viral suppression" is not methodologically adequate given the unmeasured adherence level among participants, different samples sizes used for knowledge assessment and viral suppression, and the fact that it's not included as an objective of this study. I, therefore, suggest that the portion be expunged from the paper.

Reviewer #2: The content of the manuscript is scientifically relevant and the findings are in line with similar papers coming out of this region. There are certain issues which I would like to point out..

1) The language has to be considerably improved throughout the manuscript. I would suggest seeking help from an English language editor.

2) Sample size calculation and sampling strategy is not mentioned in the manuscript. Was the sample universal and only those fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included?

3) The scoring assigned for the knowledge section of the questionnaire is not clearly explained and is quite confusing.

4) What is the difference between does not know and do not answer ---is the difference literal?

5) I would suggest retaining the correct responses and arrange it in descending order.

6) Some of the statements under Knowledge regarding ARV are assessing perception, rather than knowledge

7)Class interval chosen for age groups are not uniform? what is the basis for such interval?

8) For tables determining the factors for not achieving viral suppression, the information is non-coherent with loads of variables. The interpretation becomes too difficult.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Akinola Ayoola Fatiregun

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

4 Jul 2021

To whom it may concern

Thank you very much for your comments. We have addressed each one of your comments/recommendations in the rebuttal letter.

Best regards

Jose Luis Paredes

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

Click here for additional data file.

4 Aug 2021

HIV and antiretroviral treatment knowledge gaps and psychosocial burden among persons living with HIV linked to care in Lima, Peru

PONE-D-21-01332R1

Dear Dr. Paredes,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Rekha Thapar, MD

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: All previous comments were addressed appropriately. However, the tables will need to be formatted or design in line with the journal's guideline. In addition, definitions of all acronyms used within the table should be provided as table footnotes or legend.

Reviewer #3: Some of my observations and queries:

1) The manuscript needs language edit

2) Authors have failed to mention 171 eligible participants were selected from from what sample ? How many PLHIV were there in the centre during the study period ?

3) Why was the sample size calculation not done ?

4) The knowledge section in the study was a mixture of both knowledge and awareness about HIV / ARV? On what basis was answering 80% of the questions correctly was considered good knowledge?

5) Association between viral suppression and good knowledge is not discussed in the paper.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr Akinola Ayoola Fatiregun

Reviewer #3: No

11 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-01332R1

HIV and antiretroviral treatment knowledge gaps and psychosocial burden among persons living with HIV in Lima, Peru

Dear Dr. Paredes:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Rekha Thapar

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE