Cover: Socioeconomic Support Reduces Nonretention in a Comprehensive, Community-Based Antiretroviral Therapy Program in Uganda

Socioeconomic Support Reduces Nonretention in a Comprehensive, Community-Based Antiretroviral Therapy Program in Uganda

Published in: Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, v. 59, no. 4, Apr. 2012, p. e52-e59

by Stella Talisuna-Alamo, Robert Colebunders, Joseph Ouma, Pamela Sunday, Kenneth Ekoru, Marie Laga, Glenn Wagner, Fred Wabwire-Mangen

Read More

Access further information on this document at Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the benefit of socioeconomic support (S-E support), comprising various financial and nonfinancial services that are available based on assessment of need, in reducing mortality and lost to follow-up (LTFU) at Reach Out Mbuya, a community-based, antiretroviral therapy program in Uganda. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort data from adult patients enrolled between May 31, 2001, and May 31, 2010, were examined. METHODS: Patients were categorized into none, 1, and 2 or more S-E support based on the number of different S-E support services they received. Using Cox proportional hazards regression, we modeled the association between S-E support and mortality or LTFU. Kaplan-Meier curves were fitted to examine retention functions stratified by S-E support. RESULTS: In total, 6654 patients were evaluated. After 10 years, 2700 (41%) were retained. Of the 3954 not retained, 2933 (74%) were LTFU and 1021 (26%) had died. After 1, 2, 5, and 10 years, the risks of LTFU or mortality in patients who received no S-E support were significantly higher than those who received some S-E support. In adjusted hazards ratios, patients who received no S-E support were 1.5-fold (1.39-1.64) and 6.7-fold (5.56-7.69) more likely to get LTFU compared with those who received 1 or ≥2 S-E support, respectively. Likewise, patients who received no S-E support were 1.5-fold (confidence interval: 1.16 to 1.89) and 4.3-fold (confidence interval: 2.94 to 6.25) more likely to die compared with those who received 1 or 2+ S-E support, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of S-E support reduced LTFU and mortality, suggesting the value of incorporating such strategies for promoting continuity of care.

Research conducted by

This report is part of the RAND Corporation external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.