Sanga Erica S, Mukumbang Ferdinand C, Mushi Adiel K, Olomi Willyhelmina, Lerebo Wondwossen, Zarowsky Christina
NIMR-Mwanza Medical Research Centre (MMRC), Mwanza, Tanzania.
School of Public Health, University of Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.
AIDS Res Ther. 2018 Nov 20;15(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s12981-018-0209-8.
Like other countries, Tanzania instituted mobile and outreach testing approaches to address low HIV testing rates at health facilities and enhance linkage to care. Available evidence from hard-to-reach rural settings of Mbeya region, Tanzania suggests that clients testing HIV+ at facility-based sites are more likely to link to care, and to link sooner, than those testing at mobile sites. This paper (1) describes the populations accessing HIV testing at mobile/outreach and facility-based testing sites, and (2) compares processes and dynamics from testing to linkage to care between these two testing models from the same study context.
An explanatory sequential mixed-method study (a) reviewed records of all clients (n = 11,773) testing at 8 mobile and 8 facility-based testing sites over 6 months; (b), reviewed guidelines; (c) observed HIV testing sites (n = 10) and Care and Treatment Centers (CTCs) (n = 8); (d) applied questionnaires at 0, 3 and 6 months to a cohort of 1012 HIV newly-diagnosed clients from the 16 sites; and (e) conducted focus group discussions (n = 8) and in-depth qualitative interviews with cohort members (n = 10) and health care providers (n = 20).
More clients tested at mobile/outreach than facility-based sites (56% vs 44% of 11,733, p < 0.001). Mobile site clients were more likely to be younger and male (p < 0.001). More clients testing at facility sites were HIV positive (21.5% vs. 7.9% of 11,733, p < 0.001). All sites in both testing models adhered to national HIV testing and care guidelines. Staff at mobile sites showed more proactive efforts to support linkage to care, and clients report favouring the confidentiality of mobile sites to avoid stigma. Clients who tested at mobile/outreach sites faced longer delays and waiting times at treatment sites (CTCs).
Rural mobile/outreach HIV testing sites reach more people than facility based sites but they reach a different clientèle which is less likely to be HIV +ve and appears to be less "linkage-ready". Despite more proactive care and confidentiality at mobile sites, linkage to care is worse than for clients who tested at facility-based sites. Our findings highlight a combination of (a) patient-level factors, including stigma; and (b) well-established procedures and routines for each step between testing and initiation of treatment in facility-based sites. Long waiting times at treatment sites are a further barrier that must be addressed.
与其他国家一样,坦桑尼亚采用了流动和外展检测方法,以解决医疗机构艾滋病毒检测率低的问题,并加强与护理的联系。来自坦桑尼亚姆贝亚地区难以到达的农村地区的现有证据表明,在医疗机构检测出艾滋病毒呈阳性的患者比在流动检测点检测的患者更有可能获得护理,而且更早获得护理。本文(1)描述了在流动/外展检测点和医疗机构检测点接受艾滋病毒检测的人群,(2)比较了在同一研究背景下这两种检测模式从检测到与护理联系的过程和动态。
一项解释性序列混合方法研究:(a)回顾了6个月内在8个流动检测点和8个医疗机构检测点接受检测的所有患者(n = 11773)的记录;(b)审查了指导方针;(c)观察了10个艾滋病毒检测点和8个护理与治疗中心(CTC);(d)在0、3和6个月时,对来自16个检测点的1012名新诊断艾滋病毒患者队列进行问卷调查;(e)进行了8次焦点小组讨论,并对队列成员(n = 10)和医疗服务提供者(n = 20)进行了深入的定性访谈。
在流动/外展检测点接受检测的患者比在医疗机构检测点的更多(11733名患者中分别为56%和44%,p < 0.001)。流动检测点的患者更可能是年轻人和男性(p < 0.001)。在医疗机构检测点接受检测的艾滋病毒阳性患者更多(11733名患者中分别为21.5%和7.9%,p < 0.001)。两种检测模式中的所有检测点都遵守国家艾滋病毒检测和护理指导方针。流动检测点的工作人员在支持与护理联系方面表现出更积极的努力,患者报告更喜欢流动检测点的保密性以避免耻辱感。在流动/外展检测点接受检测的患者在治疗点(CTC)面临更长的延迟和等待时间。
农村流动/外展艾滋病毒检测点覆盖的人数比医疗机构检测点多,但覆盖的人群不同,该人群艾滋病毒呈阳性的可能性较小,而且似乎不太“准备好接受护理”。尽管流动检测点提供了更积极的护理和保密性,但与在医疗机构检测点接受检测的患者相比,与护理的联系更差。我们的研究结果突出了以下因素的综合作用:(a)患者层面的因素,包括耻辱感;(b)医疗机构检测点从检测到开始治疗的每个步骤都有完善的程序和常规。治疗点的长时间等待是另一个必须解决的障碍。