The impact of the caregiver mobility on child HIV care in the Manhiça District, Southern Mozambique: A clinical based study.

INTRODUCTION: Manhiça District, in Southern Mozambique harbors high HIV prevalence and a long history of migration. To optimize HIV care, we sought to assess how caregiver's mobility impacts children living with HIV (CLHIV)´s continuation in HIV care and to explore the strategies used by caregivers to maintain their CLHIV on antiretroviral treatment (ART).
METHODS: A clinic-based cross-sectional survey conducted at the Manhiça District Hospital between December-2017 and February-2018. We enrolled CLHIV with a self-identified migrant caregiver (moved outside of Manhiça District ≤12 months prior to survey) and non-migrant caregiver, matched by the child age and sex. Survey data were linked to CLHIV clinical records from the HIV care and treatment program.
RESULTS: Among the 975 CLHIV screened, 285 (29.2%) were excluded due to absence of an adult at the appointment. A total of 232 CLHIV-caregiver pairs were included. Of the 41 (35%) CLHIV migrating with their caregivers, 38 (92.6%) had access to ART at the destination because either the caregivers travelled with it 24 (63%) or it was sent by a family member 14 (36%). Among the 76 (65%) CLHIV who did not migrate with their caregivers, for the purpose of pharmacy visits, 39% were cared by their grandfather/grandmother, 28% by an aunt/uncle and 16% by an adult brother/sister. CLHIV of migrant caregivers had a non-statistically significant increase in the number of previous reported sickness episodes (OR = 1.38, 95%CI: 0.79-2.42; p = 0.257), ART interruptions (OR = 1.73; 95%CI: 0.82-3.63; p = 0.142) and lost-to-follow-up episodes (OR = 1.53; 95%CI: 0.80-2.94; p = 0.193).
CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one third of the children attend their HIV care appointments unaccompanied by an adult. The caregiver mobility was not found to significantly affect child's retention on ART. Migrant caregivers adopted strategies such as the transportation of ART to the mobility destination to avoid impact of mobility on the child's HIV care. However this may have implications on ART stability and effectiveness that should be investigated in rural areas.

Introduction

The New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants encourages countries to address the vulnerabilities to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and the specific health care needs experienced by migrant and mobile populations, as well as by refugees and crisis-affected populations, and to support their access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support [1]. However, evidence suggests that the Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries remain poorly equipped to initiate and manage the political discussions within and between member states that are required to develop appropriate regional responses to migration, mobility, and HIV [2].

Mozambique is a SADC member with the southern region of the country harboring high rates of population movement within and between countries such as Eswatini and South Africa [3, 4]. Such high mobility has contributed to the spread of HIV via well-documented corridors of population movement [5-9]. The patterns and types of migration have changed considerably over the decades from the colonial era state-controlled “male-only” labor migration to mines and farms to a mix of clandestine work-seeking migrants or refugees fleeing from the civil war and environmental catastrophes in Mozambique [10]. Women represent an increasingly large segment of employment mobility corresponding to about 50% of migrants in some regions of the country and working in less specialized sectors of activity such as agriculture, fishing, informal trade or domestic work [11, 12].

The effect of migration and mobility on HIV care has been mostly described among adults. Studies have shown that the combination of high HIV prevalence and differing patterns of mobility has a negative impact on access to HIV and sexually transmitted infections prevention and care for migrants and their sexual partners, both at the origin and destination households [13-15]. Regarding children living with HIV (CLHIV), previous studies have demonstrated that the distance as well as the time spent outside of the origin household by caregiver may have a large impact on childhood immunizations [16]. Nevertheless, data describing the effects of caregiver’s mobility on the continuation of their children’s HIV care is unknown in Mozambique.

In Mozambique, as at the end of 2019 it was estimated 150,000 CLHIV, with 15,000 new infections among children younger than 15 years of age [17, 18]. The country was committed to achieve the UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets by 2020, but retention on antiretroviral treatment (ART) presents a particular challenge, with recent reports estimating a 70% retention at 12 months of ART initiation [19, 20]. Given the high mobility, it is very likely that a proportion of these children retained in care have migrant or mobility caregivers, but our understanding of the specific strategies used by migrants and mobility caregivers to retain their children in HIV care and ART is limited.

The main objectives of this study were to describe the pattern of mobility among caregivers of children enrolled in HIV care at the Manhiça District Hospital (MDH), to assess how caregiver’s mobility affects CLHIV continuation in HIV care, and to explore the strategies used by mobile caregivers to retain their CLHIV in HIV care and on antiretroviral treatment.

Materials and methods

Study setting

The study was conducted in Manhiça, a rural area located 80 kilometers north of the capital Maputo that has 21 health centers, one rural hospital and one referral district hospital, the Manhiça District Hospital (MDH). A Health and Demographic Surveillance System (HDSS) run by the Centro de Investigação em Saúde de Manhiça (CISM) has been in place in Manhiça since 1996, facilitating confirmation of vital status, migration and socio-economic status, among others [21]. The area is endemic for HIV and as at the end of 2017, 2237 children were registered with pediatric HIV services across the district, of which 30% were followed at HDM (Manhiça health authority’s communication, 2017). HIV services are offered free of charge in all health facilities. Every newly HIV diagnosed patient is encouraged to enroll in care and patients can be tracked within sites using a unique numeric identifier which is used in charts, paper registers, and in Minister of Health (MoH) electronic HIV patient tracking systems (ePTS) [22]. At the time of the study, first and second line ART included two Nucleoside/tide Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors (NRTI) and one Non-Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors (NNRTI) or protease inhibitor (PI) [23]. Clinical consultations for children were routinely scheduled monthly during the first-year post diagnosis and then extended to bimonthly, while ART pick-ups were scheduled monthly. Since 2015, several differentiated service delivery (DSD) models including the family-based care model, expedited clinical appointments, three-month drug distribution, and community ART support groups (CASG) have been applied to improve retention in ART.

Study design, participants and procedures

This cross-sectional survey took place in the MDH between December 2017 and February 2018, the period during which there is a two to three fold increase in hospital visits due to the return of migrants for the holiday period. CLHIV consecutively presenting for scheduled clinic visits at the MDH pediatric ART visit were screened for the following inclusion criteria: 1) child accompanied by an adult caregiver (aged >18 years), 2) residency in the Manhiça HDSS for at least three months, 3) enrolled in the MDH HIV clinic and 4) a history of ART initiation at least one year prior to the survey date. Caregivers of the CLHIV fulfilling the aforementioned criteria, were invited to participate in the study, and after signing informed consent they were asked about their history of mobility (HM) during the last year. For each enrolled child with a caregiver with HM, another child with a caregiver without HM was enrolled. The matched CLHIV was identified during the 7 days following the date of enrolment of the child with a primary caregiver with HM. Children were matched by gender and age, with a ± 6 months range for CLHIV aged 0–59 months old and ± 2 years for those aged 5–15 years old,. The caregiver was asked about mobility patterns, child health and adherence to HIV care and reported barriers to HIV care continuation after the mobility episode. The answers were recorded in an electronic questionnaire specifically designed for the study in REDCAP [24]. Finally, caregiver’s data was matched to their children’s clinical data and retrospectively evaluated.

Sample size calculation

Based on prior clinic visit volumes it was anticipated that MDH would see approximately 20 daily pediatric visits during December 2017 and February 2018 in the HIV care and treatment program and that 30% of these visits would meet eligibility criteria as a participant with history of migration out of the district. Assuming an acceptance rate of 80%, we expected to recruit one hundred fifty children with a history of parental migration and one hundred fifty children without for a total of three hundred children/caregivers. As our estimated recruitment sample was fixed (based on convenience), the statistical power to detect a difference in LTFU was variable depending on actual LTFU rates in each group (i.e. for a LTFU of 20% in the non-mobile group, we would expect a 96% power to detect a difference if the LTFU was 40% in the migrant group, but only a 46% power to detect a difference if the LTFU was 30% in the migrant group).

Study definitions

For the purpose of the study, history of mobility (HM) was defined as home-absenteeism over 4 consecutive nights at least 3 times throughout the past year or definitive address change according to the answers given in the study questionnaire. Following The United Nations Recommendations on Statistics of International Migration, migration destination was classified in internal and external if mobility was within or outside the country, respectively; and in short-, medium- and long- term if the stay was less than 3 months at destination; between 3 and 11months or at least 12 months respectively [25]. Primary caregiver education was stratified in two groups: no formal education (no education or did not complete primary education) and some formal education (at least completed primary education).

We defined “delayed ART pick-up” if the patient had at least a 15 to 60 days delay in picking up their ART and lost to follow-up (LTFU) was defined as pharmacy default >60 days regardless of the fact that they all were back in care at the time of completing the survey according to the hospital records. ART interruption was self-reported by caregivers as some days missed ART administration when it was available.

Statistical methods

All analyses were conducted using Stata® software (version 15.0) (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA). A descriptive analysis was performed with frequencies and percentages, stratifying by history of mobility. Differences in the distribution of socio-demographic variables between participants with and without HM were assessed by means of Chi-squared test for categorical variables, Chi-squared or Fisher’s for categorical variables and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables, respectively. We then conducted conditional logistic regression analysis where the dependent variables included: reported illness, hospitalization and ART missed daily doses, ART pick-up delays and LTFU episodes occurring during the previous year. Odds ratios, as a measure of association with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI), were presented as crude (OR) values. The results with a p-value <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Ethical considerations

The protocol and informed consent (obtained and signed by the parents or legal guardians of minors) were approved by the Institutional Committee for Bioethics in Health of CISM (CIBS-CISM/169/2017).

Results

Study population

A total of 975 CLHIV were screened for study inclusion criteria and among these, 35.1% (344/975) did not meet criteria and were not invited to participate (Fig 1). Nearly one third 29.1% (285/975) of the CLHIV screened were excluded because they came alone for their appointment or accompanied by a minor. Other exclusion criteria included not having been on ART for 12 months (3.8%, 13/344) and having the last known residence outside the HDSS area 1.5% (5/344) (Fig 1). Among the 635 eligible children, 117 were children whose caregivers had a HM. They were matched to 115 without HM. After matching was completed, the remaining 403 with no HM were not included in the study. Children not included in the analysis presented a similar distribution of sex and age categories as those included in the analysis (p = 0.487 and p = 0.248, respectively), but their ART retention patterns were not analyzed.

Fig 1

Study profile showing number of patients and reason for not recruiting (December 2017—February 2018).

Baseline characteristics

The median age of the children was 7.8 years (IQR 4.9–10.5), 48% (111/232) were female, and most were under ART for more than two years (84%) (Table 1). Regarding caregivers, 39% didn’t have any formal education and 38% had a fixed salary. Some differences were found according to the HM. For 82% of the children with HM, the mother was the main caregiver, as opposed to 66% of those without HM (p = 0.017). In addition, those caregivers with HM were more likely to have a fixed salary (p<0.001) and a cell phone (p = 0.011).

Table 1

Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of children and their caregivers according to the caregiver’ mobility history at the enrolment, number (percentages).

Characteristics	Caregiver mobility history		TotalN = 232	P value1	P value2
	YesN = 117	NoN = 115
	Child
Age in years: median (IQR)	7.7 (4.9–10.4)	8.0 (10.7–4.7)	7.8 (4.9–10.5)		0.947*
Age group (in years)
0–4	30 (26)	31 (27)	61 (27)
5–9	103 (43)	53 (46)	103 (44)
≥10	37 (31)	31 (27)	68 (29)	0.257	0.735*
Child sex
Male	58 (50)	63 (55)	121 (52)
Female	59 (50)	52 (45)	111 (48)	0.125	0.427*
Child’s vaccination status
Yes	91 (78)	83 (72)	174 (75)
No	4 (3)	3 (3)	7 (3)
Don t know	21 (18)	29 (25)	50 (22)	0.379	0.409
Time period on ARVs
At least 1 year	21 (18)	16 (14)	37 (16)
More than 2 years	96 (82)	98 (86)	194 (84)	0.273	0.417
School—daycare attendance
Yes	75 (64)	80 (70)	155 (67)
No	18 (15)	17 (15)	35 (15)
No information	24 (21)	18 (15)	42 (18)	0.210	0.598
Child primary caregiver
Mother	76 (65)	94 (81)	170 (73)
Grandfather/grandmother	9 (8)	3 (3)	12 (5)
Father	24 (20)	10 (9)	34 (15)
Brother or sister	3 (3)	2 (2)	5 (2)
Aunt or uncle	5 (4)	6 (5)	11 (5)	0.017	0.027
	Caregiver
Formal education
No formal education	47 (40)	44 (38)	91 (39)
Some formal education	70 (60)	71 (62)	141 (61)	0.696	0.766
Fixed salary
Yes	58 (50)	31 (27)	89 (38)
No	59 (50)	84 (73)	143 (62)	<0.001	<0.001
Religion
Other Christian	69 (59)	60 (53)	129 (56)
Zione	27 (23)	30 (26)	27 (25)
Protestants / Anglicans	18 (15)	21 (18)	18 (17)
Islam	3 (3)	3 (3)	3 (2)	0.836	0.807
Number cellphone
None	13 (11)	17 (15)	30 (13)
Only one	94 (80)	97 (84)	191 (82)
More than one	10 (9)	1 (1)	11 (5)	0.011	0.019

* Pairing variable; 1 Conditional logistic analysis; 2 Chi-squared or Fisher’s for categorical variables and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables.

Caregiver’s migration patterns

In 70% of the children with HM the migration occurred within Mozambique, and among those, Maputo City (55%) followed by Gaza Province (23%) were the most frequent destinations (Table 2). Nearly all of the 30% that migrated outside the country y went to South Africa. Most of the caregivers (90%) reported short-term -stays each trip as follows: less than a week (45%), less than 15 days (24%) and from 15 days to 3 months (21%); and 97% had between 2–5 mobility events during the preceding year. Between the mobility episodes, caregivers stated staying at home for: 1–3 months (68%), only on weekends (16%), more than 3 months (7%) and about one month (2%). The most frequent reason for mobility events were work/ business or looking for opportunities (41%) followed by visit or support to family/relatives (27%), following the partner (12%) and participating in religious ceremonies (9%). Compared to caregivers with external migration, those with internal migration were more likely to stay less than three months (short term length-stay) at destination (p<0.001) and to travel with their CLHIV (p = 0.010).

Table 2

Migration patterns of HIV children’s caregivers enrolled in care at Manhiça District Hospital.

Characteristics	N (%)
Destination of mobility
Internal migration	82 (70)
External migration	35 (30)
Which province if internal migration N = 82
Maputo City	45 (55)
Gaza	19 (23)
Maputo Province	7 (9)
Other provinces	11 (13)
Which country if external migration N = 35
South Africa	34 (97)
Multiple countries (South Africa—Malawi—Eswatini)	1 (3)
Have a passport if external migration
Yes	24 (69)
No	11 (31)
Number of mobility events (over the last 12 months)
2–5 times	114 (97)
Once a week	3 (2)
Once a month	1 (1)
Length stay at destination
Less than a week	53 (45)
Less than 15 days	28 (24)
From 15 days to 3 months	24 (21)
From 3 to 9 months	11 (9)
More than 9 months	1 (1)
Reason of the mobility
Work or business or looking for opportunities	48 (41)
Visit or support for relatives	32 (27)
Following the partner	14 (12)
Religious ceremonies	10 (9)
Others (studies, alternative residency and undisclosed reasons)	13 (11)
Residence at the destination
Family house	53 (45)
Own house	36 (31)
Rented house	22 (19)
Job house or church or institute	6 (5)
The child moved with the caretaker
Yes	41 (35)
No	76 (65)

Strategies used by caregivers to retain their children in HIV care

Fig 2 presents the strategies used by caregivers to retain their children in HIV care. Of the 41 (35%) CLHIV moving or travelling with their caregivers, 3 (7%) interrupted ART during the mobility event while 38 (93%) had access to ART at the destination because either the caregivers travelled with it 24 (63%) or it was sent by a family member 14 (37%). None of the caregivers reported accessing ARVs at a destination clinic. Among the 76 (65%) children who did not move or travel with their caregivers, for the purpose of pharmacy ART pick-up and HIV-care visits most were taken care of by their grandparents 30 (39%), aunts/uncles 21 (28%) or brothers/sisters 12 (16%).

Fig 2

Strategies used by caregiver s to retain their children in HIV care and ART among those with mobility history.

Despite the previous described strategies which contributed to increase ART availability, 12 (16%) caregivers moving with their children and 8 (20%) of those not moving with their children reported missed ART daily administration (defined as ART interruption in this study) at some point. Nevertheless, in terms of ARTs interruptions, there were no statistically significant differences between children who travelled or moved with their caregivers compared to those not moving with their caregiver (p = 0.610). No differences regarding ART delay pick up (p = 0.9780), occurrence of LTFU episodes (p = 0.768) and nor reported sickness episodes (p = 0.353) were found either.

Among those children who did not move with their caregiver and ARTs interruptions were reported, children who were taken care of by their grandfather/grandmother had the highest (39%) proportion of ART interruptions, followed by aunts/uncles (28%) and brothers/sisters (16%) (p = 0.045).

The impact of the caregiver mobility on child´s HIV care

CLHIV of caregivers with HM had a non-statistically significant increase in the number of previous reported sickness episodes (45% vs 37%; OR = 1.38, 95%CI: 0.79–2.42; p = 0.257), ART interruptions (17% vs 10%; OR = 1.73; 95%CI: 0.82–3.63; p = 0.142) and LTFU episodes (34% vs 26%; OR = 1.53; 95%CI: 0.80–2.94; p = 0.193) compared to those children whose caregivers did not have HM (Table 3). In addition, none of the caregiver’s migration patterns variables were either significantly associated with child continuation in HIV-care.

Table 3

Impacts of caregiver´s mobility on child´s health and HIV care during the mobility events period.

Characteristics	Mobility history			OR	95%CI	P value3
	YesN = 117	NoN = 115	TotalN = 232
Reported sickness 1
No	64 (55)	72 (63)	136 (59)
Yes	52 (45)	42 (37)	94 (41)	1.38	0.79–2.42	0.257
Hospitalization1
No	106 (91)	105 (91)	211 (91)
Yes	11 (9)	10 (9)	21 (9)	1.13	0.43–2.92	0.808
ART missed days doses 1
No	97 (83)	103 (90)	200 (86)
Yes	20 (17)	12 (10)	32 (14)	1.73	0.82–3.63	0.142
ART pick-up delays2
No	65 (60)	63 (59)	128 (60)
Yes	43 (40)	44 (41)	87 (40)	0.81	0.48–1.37	0.422
LTFU2
No	71 (66)	79 (74)	150 (70)
Yes	37 (34)	28 (26)	65 (30)	1.53	0.80–2.94	0.193

1Reported by the caregiver

2According to hospital records

3Conditional logistic analysis (not adjusted).

When returning from a mobility episode, most caregivers 102 (88%) referred no barriers to continuation in care. Among the 14 caregivers reporting barriers, they included mistreatment by health personnel 7 (50%), long waiting times 5 (36%) and not finding the correct visit room 2 (14%). When asking about alternative ART dosing schedules that could help facilitate ART access for their children, caregivers reported preferring a 3-month dosing schedule 82 (71%), followed by a 6-month dosing schedule 26 (22%) and 3 to 6-month dosing schedule 8 (7%).

Discussion

Describing migration patterns and their association with HIV care constitute a priority in areas with large people living with HIV on ART such as the Manhiça District. These data are crucial to guide health care providers in implementing interventions aiming to improve HIV care and avoid interruptions in ART. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report describing the impact of mobility on child HIV care in Mozambique.

This clinic-based study has reported high proportions of internal migration as well as short-term stays among caregivers of CLHIV during their HIV care. Maputo City, the capital of Mozambique, and South Africa, the highest-income country among those bordering Mozambique were the most frequent destinations. Indeed, mobility and migration occur mostly with the hope of improving quality of life [26, 27]. Most of the time, migrants come from places that are affected by various issues like poverty or high unemployment rate and they seek settings that may create opportunity for a better life. In fact, in this study, the main motivations for mobility were work or business or looking for opportunities. In addition, in this study, 66% of the caregivers with mobility history were the child’s mother. Data from ongoing demographic surveillance in Manhiça indicate that over 50% of households are led by women and this may have contributed to the short-term pattern observed. The head woman of the household must undergo a double-shift exercise, that is, the woman who is the breadwinner of the family and the woman “caregiver of the home” (taking care of children, taking care of her husband, cooking, washing, among others home tasks) [28, 29]. Being the primary caregiver doesn’t permit long term absences from the household and this was decisive for the short-term stay mobility pattern found in this district.

One of the main objectives of this study was to assess the impact of caregiver’s mobility on their CLHIV continuation in HIV care. Published studies have shown the association between mobility health care and retention on HIV treatment with, emphasis on external mobility [30-32]. However, our results show that none of the mobility pattern impacted on the child HIV care. Our results suggested that caregivers adopted strategies to avoid impact on the child’s HIV care. Our study population was clinic-based and thus was more likely to recruit caregivers who may be more diligent in care-seeking behaviors and thus not be generalizable to the entire population. Future studies assessing the impact of caregiver’s mobility on children’s HIV health and care should be carried out in the community in order to increase generalizability and reduce this potential selection bias.

Another finding to highlight was that almost one third of the screened children presented to the HIV clinic alone or with an underage companion, and were thus not included in our study due to lack of a caregiver to give consent. The reasons for attending the clinic unaccompanied as well as the associations with mobility of caregivers need to be elucidated. Indeed children lacking adequate supervision have been linked to unintentional childhood injuries, to antisocial and risky behaviors, poorer school performance, sexual abuse, poor HIV care and other harmful consequences for children in low- and middle-income countries [33, 34]. Furthermore, this result suggest the need to engage caregivers in CLHIV HIV care. The family-based care model, a DSD model that is being implemented by the MoH in which adult and pediatric services are provided together in a single setting, could be instrumental, however challenging in mobile caregivers.

Among the strategies used by primary caregivers to retain CLHIV in HIV care and ART during the mobility event, was the substitution of the primary caregiver by another caregiver who took the CLHIV to the clinic and pharmacy visits. Children who were taken care of by their grandparents had the highest proportion of ART interruptions compared to those cared for by siblings and other non-relatives. This may be related to the fact that grandparents in general are less literate and more likely to get sick which can lead to errors in the dates or loss of visits respectively. Thus, it will be necessary to understand the reasons for interruptions in care among the different types of substitute caregivers.

Moreover, we found that 93% of the primary caregivers moving with the children took ARTs with them or asked a relative to send the ART to the mobility destination. Again, this finding demonstrates that this population of caregivers recognized the importance of retaining their children on ART. However, the conditions for transporting medicines from one place to another can impact the drug´s stability, which is fundamental to their effectiveness [35, 36] and should be investigated in Mozambican rural areas. Lopinavir/ritonavir oral solution which constituted the main formulation in younger children at the time of the study and requires 2°C to 8°C cold chain handling, may quickly be rendered ineffective simply due to inconsistent refrigeration [37]. This could be mitigated with the introduction of paediatric dolutegravir in the ART regimens in Mozambique [38]. In addition transporting medicines increase the risk of drug losing or running out and interrupting some daily doses.

At the national level, since 2013, the Mozambican government has made great efforts to ensure that, using the unique identification number and an electronic HIV patient tracking systems (ePTS), patients have access to ARV in any part of the country. However a downside to this policy is that mobile populations can only pick-up ART in a different health unit once during the mobility transit and the following pick-ups must take place at the original health unit. Internationally, migrants have experienced continued difficulties accessing ART as there are reports documenting that an insufficient attention has been paid in recent years to address the health needs of the increased numbers of migrants and refugees worldwide [2, 39, 40]. Understanding the HIV care needs for mobile populations provides an opportunity to adapt differentiated service delivery models to the specificities of dissimilar mobility patterns.

The strength of this study was the triangulation of survey data and children’s HIV care history retrieved from the HIV routine clinical data at the MDH. However there are several limitations. Due to the high number of missing data in the ePTS database and lack of uniformity of the data recorders, it was not possible to assess the association between mobility and other clinical variables such as WHO clinical stage, CD4 count or viral load. Secondly, in the hospital setting where this study took place, we were not able to capture information from children without caregiver at the HIV visit. Finally, the data presented in this manuscript are three years old, nevertheless there hasn’t been other data related to impact of mobility on child HIV care to date.

Conclusions

The caregiver mobility was not found to significantly affect child’s retention on ART. To ensure CLHIV’s retention in ART and avoid impact of mobility on the CLHIV’s HIV care, caregivers adopted strategies such as the identification of another caregiver to take care of their CLHIV and the transportation of ART from origin households to the mobility destination. However, transporting medicines may have implications on stability, which is fundamental to maintain the effectiveness of medicines and must be investigated in rural areas. By other side, nearly one third of the CLHIV in Manhiça came to their HIV appointments without the companion of an adult reflecting the need of differentiated service delivery models which target these mobile populations with the purpose of engaging caregivers in CLHIV HIV care.

Questionnaire for child with a caregiver with history of mobility (HM) in Portuguese.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Questionnaire for child with a caregiver without history of mobility (HM) in English.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(RAR)

Click here for additional data file.

12 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-13785The impact of the caregiver mobility on child HIV care in the Manhiça District, Southern Mozambique: a clinical based studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nhampossa,

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.

Please address all the comments of Reviewer 2.

For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 26 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: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.

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 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: https://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,

Oathokwa Nkomazana, MD MSC PhD

Academic 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

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

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. If the original language is written in non-Latin characters, for example Amharic, Chinese, or Korean, please use a file format that ensures these characters are visible.

3. Please state whether you validated the questionnaire prior to testing on study participants. Please provide details regarding the validation group within the methods section.

4. 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 more 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 sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) 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. 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.

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ.

6. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

7. Please include a copy of Table 3 which you refer to in your text on page 15.

8. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for submitting the manuscript to Plos One. This is very important subject that has broad applications. Please address the comments made by Reviewer 2.

[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: Partly

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: Yes

**********

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: The manuscript was well written. The methods were clear and sound. The objectives were clear and the authors achieved the objectives. The manuscript will contribute to patient care and improve access to ART. The authors observ d ethics very well.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting study addressing a topic with clear social and scientific value. The motivation for this study is well presented and the objectives are articulated well.

The impact of the results is limited by the relatively small sample size of the study. Although the chosen period of the study is justified by the authors assumption that hospital visits increase two to three fold during this time, it is not clear whether secular trends could affect this. Therefore a longer period than the 3 month period would have been useful to account for this. There is need to provide an estimate of the denominator figure for Children Living with HIV in the Manhica area and the number receiving care at the Manhica district hospital to give the reader perspective.

Although the results presented (both in the abstract and the main body of the manuscript) highlight non-significant association (thus negative results regarding these associations), the conclusion has ignored the implication of these. Similarly the lack of association is not discussed in the discussion section. If these were hypothesized a priori (and thus included in the conditional logistic model), they need to be fully discussed in light of the literature.

The data analysis plan (statistical methods) refers to use of parametric tests for normal continuous variables. However these tests are not specified and a review of the results show categorical variables and non-normally distributed variables. The write up in the statistical methods section limits the analysis of categorical data to the Chi-squared test (omits the appropriateness of Fisher's exact test) even though the footnote in Table 1 indicates that Fisher's exact test was used where appropriate. Details about the estimated sample size as well as assumptions used are missing.

**********

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: Goabaone Rankgoane-Pono

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.

15 Nov 2021

REVIEWER #2:

1. This is an interesting study addressing a topic with clear social and scientific value. The motivation for this study is well presented and the objectives are articulated well. The impact of the results is limited by the relatively small sample size of the study. Although the chosen period of the study is justified by the author’s assumption that hospital visits increase two to three fold during this time, it is not clear whether secular trends could affect this. Therefore a longer period than the 3 month period would have been useful to account for this. There is need to provide an estimate of the denominator figure for Children Living with HIV in the Manhica area and the number receiving care at the Manhica district hospital to give the reader perspective.

Answer: We have included in Materials and Methods - Study setting section a phrase regarding the denominator figure for Children Living with HIV in the Manhiça area and the number receiving care at the Manhiça district hospital according to the local health authority’s annual report in order to give the reader perspective (in text line 109 in the Revised Manuscript with NO Track Changes).

2. Although the results presented (both in the abstract and the main body of the manuscript) highlight non-significant association (thus negative results regarding these associations), the conclusion has ignored the implication of these. Similarly the lack of association is not discussed in the discussion section. If these were hypothesized a priori (and thus included in the conditional logistic model), they need to be fully discussed in light of the literature.

Answer: The lack of association between caregiver’s mobility child continuations in HIV care had not been hypothesized a priori. In order to highlight the non-significant association found in the study, we have included the phrase “…..The caregiver mobility was not found to significantly affect child's retention on ART…” in the two conclusions sections (lines 48 and 372) and the phrase “However, our results show that none of the mobility pattern impacted on the child HIV care……” in third paragraph of the discussion section line 309.

3. The data analysis plan (statistical methods) refers to use of parametric tests for normal continuous variables. However these tests are not specified and a review of the results show categorical variables and non-normally distributed variables. The write up in the statistical methods section limits the analysis of categorical data to the Chi-squared test (omits the appropriateness of Fisher's exact test) even though the footnote in Table 1 indicates that Fisher's exact test was used where appropriate.

Answer: We corrected and updated the information about the statistical tests in the Statistical methods section line 175 and also in the footnote of table 1 line 216.

4. Details about the estimated sample size as well as assumptions used are missing.

Answer: Details about the estimated sample size as well as assumptions used are now presented in the Sample size calculation section line 144.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers PONE-D-21-13785 November 2021.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

1 Dec 2021

The impact of the caregiver mobility on child HIV care in the Manhiça District, Southern Mozambique: a clinical based study

PONE-D-21-13785R1

Dear Dr. Nhampossa,

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,

Oathokwa Nkomazana, MD MSC PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

7 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-13785R1

The impact of the caregiver mobility on child HIV care in the Manhiça District, Southern Mozambique: a clinical based study

Dear Dr. Nhampossa:

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. Oathokwa Nkomazana

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE