Suchergebnisse

AbstractIntroductionDifferentiated service delivery (DSD) models aim to increase the responsiveness of HIV treatment programmes to the individual needs of antiretroviral therapy (ART) clients to improve treatment outcomes and quality of life. Little is known about how DSD client experiences differ from conventional care.MethodsFrom May to November 2021, we interviewed adult (≥18) ART clients at 21 primary clinics in four districts of South Africa. Participants were enrolled consecutively at routine visits and stratified into four groups: conventional care‐not eligible for DSD (conventional‐not‐eligible); conventional care eligible for but not enrolled in DSD (conventional‐not‐enrolled); facility pickup point DSD model; and external pickup point DSD model. Satisfaction was assessed using questions with 5‐point Likert‐scale responses. Mean scores were categorized as not satisfied (score ≤3) or satisfied (>3). We used logistic regression to assess differences and report crude and adjusted odds ratios (aORs). Qualitative themes were identified through content analysis.ResultsEight hundred and sixty‐seven participants (70% female, median age 39) were surveyed: 24% facility pick‐up points; 27% external pick‐up points; 25% conventional‐not‐eligible; and 24% conventional‐not‐enrolled. Seventy‐four percent of all study participants expressed satisfaction with their HIV care. Those enrolled in DSD models were more likely to be satisfied, with an aOR of 6.24 (95% CI [3.18–12.24]) for external pick‐up point versus conventional‐not‐eligible and an aOR of 3.30 (1.95–5.58) for facility pick‐up point versus conventional‐not‐eligible. Conventional‐not‐enrolled clients were slightly but not significantly more satisfied than conventional‐not‐eligible clients (1.29, 0.85–1.96). Those seeking outside healthcare (crude OR 0.57, 0.41–0.81) or reporting more annual clinic visits (0.52, 0.29–0.93) were less likely to be satisfied. Conventional care participants reporting satisfaction with their current model of care perceived providers as helpful, respectful, and friendly and were satisfied with care despite long queues. DSD model participants emphasized ease and convenience, particularly not having to queue.ConclusionsMost adult ART clients in South Africa were satisfied with their care, but those enrolled in DSD models expressed slightly greater satisfaction than those remaining in conventional care. Efforts should focus on enrolling more eligible patients into DSD models, expanding eligibility criteria to cover a wider client base, and further improving the models' desirable characteristics.

AbstractIntroductionLesotho, the country with the second‐highest HIV/AIDS prevalence (23.6%) in the world, has made considerable progress towards achieving the "95‐95‐95" UNAIDS targets, but recent success in improving treatment access to all known HIV positive individuals has severely strained existing healthcare infrastructure, financial and human resources. Lesotho also faces the challenge of a largely rural population who incur a significant time and financial burden to visit healthcare facilities. Using data from a cluster‐randomized non‐inferiority trial conducted between August 2017 and July 2019, we evaluated costs to providers and costs to patients of community‐based differentiated models of multi‐month delivery of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in Lesotho.MethodsThe trial of multi‐month dispensing compared 12‐month retention in care among three arms: conventional care, which required quarterly facility visits and ART dispensation (3MF); three‐month community adherence groups (CAGs) (3MC) and six‐month community ART distribution (6MCD). We first estimated the average total annual cost of providing HIV care and treatment followed by the total cost per patient retained 12 months after entry for each arm, using resource utilization data from the trial and local unit costs. We then estimated the average annual cost to patients in each arm with self‐reported questionnaire data.ResultsThe average total annual cost of providing HIV care and treatment per patient was the highest in the 3MF arm ($122.28, standard deviation [SD] $23.91), followed by 3MC ($114.20, SD $23.03) and the 6MCD arm ($112.58, SD $21.44). Per patient retained in care, the average provider cost was $125.99 (SD $24.64) in the 3MF arm and 6% to 8% less for the other two arms ($118.38, SD $23.87 and $118.83, SD $22.63 for the 3MC and 6MCD respectively). There was a large reduction in patient costs for both differentiated service delivery arms: from $44.42 (SD $12.06) annually in the 3MF arm to $16.34 (SD $5.11) annually in the 3MC (63% reduction) and $18.77 (SD $8.31) annually in 6MCD arm (58% reduction).ConclusionsCommunity‐based, multi‐month models of ART in Lesotho are likely to produce small cost savings to treatment providers and large savings to patients in Lesotho. Patient cost savings may support long‐term adherence and retention in care.