The HIV Care Cascade

Models, Measures and Moving Forward

Published in: Journal of the International AIDS Society, v. 18, no. 1, Mar. 2015, p. 19395

Posted on on March 10, 2015

by Sarah MacCarthy, Michael Hoffmann, Laura Ferguson, Amy Nunn, Risha Irvin, David R. Bangsberg, Sofia Gruskin, Ines Dourado

Read More

Access further information on this document at Journal of the International AIDS Society

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

INTRODUCTION: This article seeks to identify where delays occur along the adult HIV care cascade (''the cascade''), to improve understanding of what constitutes ''delay'' at each stage of the cascade and how this can be measured across a range of settings and to inform service delivery efforts. Current metrics are reviewed, measures informed by global guidelines are suggested and areas for further clarification are underscored. DISCUSSION: Questions remain on how best to evaluate late entry into each stage of the cascade. The delayed uptake of HIV testing may be more consistently measured once rapid CD4 testing is administered at the time of HIV testing. For late enrolment, preliminary research has begun to determine how different time intervals for linking to HIV care affect individual health. Regarding treatment, since 2013, the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS recommend treatment initiation when CD4 B500 cells/mm3; these guidelines provide a useful albeit evolving threshold to define late treatment initiation. Finally, WHO guidelines for high-, low- and middle-income countries also could be used to standardize measures for achieving viral suppression. CONCLUSIONS: There is no ''one size fits all'' model as the provision of services may differ based on a range of factors. Nonetheless, measures informed by global guidelines are needed to more consistently evaluate the scope of and factors associated with delays to each stage of the cascade. Doing so will help identify how practitioners can best deliver services and facilitate access to and continued engagement in care.

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.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

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.