Mbuagbaw Lawrence, Hajizadeh Anisa, Wang Annie, Mertz Dominik, Lawson Daeria O, Smieja Marek, Benoit Anita C, Alvarez Elizabeth, Puchalski Ritchie Lisa, Rachlis Beth, Logie Carmen, Husbands Winston, Margolese Shari, Zani Babalwa, Thabane Lehana
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Biostatistics Unit, Father Sean O'Sullivan Research Centre, St Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
BMJ Open. 2020 Sep 23;10(9):e034793. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034793.
We sought to map the evidence and identify interventions that increase initiation of antiretroviral therapy, adherence to antiretroviral therapy and retention in care for people living with HIV at high risk for poor engagement in care.
We conducted an overview of systematic reviews and sought for evidence on vulnerable populations (men who have sex with men (MSM), African, Caribbean and Black (ACB) people, sex workers (SWs), people who inject drugs (PWID) and indigenous people). We searched PubMed, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library in November 2018. We screened, extracted data and assessed methodological quality in duplicate and present a narrative synthesis.
We identified 2420 records of which only 98 systematic reviews were eligible. Overall, 65/98 (66.3%) were at low risk of bias. Systematic reviews focused on ACB (66/98; 67.3%), MSM (32/98; 32.7%), PWID (6/98; 6.1%), SWs and prisoners (both 4/98; 4.1%). Interventions were: mixed (37/98; 37.8%), digital (22/98; 22.4%), behavioural or educational (9/98; 9.2%), peer or community based (8/98; 8.2%), health system (7/98; 7.1%), medication modification (6/98; 6.1%), economic (4/98; 4.1%), pharmacy based (3/98; 3.1%) or task-shifting (2/98; 2.0%). Most of the reviews concluded that the interventions effective (69/98; 70.4%), 17.3% (17/98) were neutral or were indeterminate 12.2% (12/98). Knowledge gaps were the types of participants included in primary studies (vulnerable populations not included), poor research quality of primary studies and poorly tailored interventions (not designed for vulnerable populations). Digital, mixed and peer/community-based interventions were reported to be effective across the continuum of care.
Interventions along the care cascade are mostly focused on adherence and do not sufficiently address all vulnerable populations.
我们试图梳理证据,并确定可提高抗逆转录病毒疗法的起始率、依从性以及增加对护理参与度低的艾滋病毒感染者护理留存率的干预措施。
我们对系统评价进行了概述,并寻找关于弱势群体(男男性行为者、非洲、加勒比和黑人、性工作者、注射吸毒者以及原住民)的证据。我们于2018年11月检索了PubMed、医学文摘数据库、护理学与健康相关文献累积索引、心理学文摘数据库、科学引文索引数据库以及考克兰图书馆。我们进行了重复筛选、数据提取和方法学质量评估,并进行了叙述性综合分析。
我们识别出2420条记录,其中仅有98篇系统评价符合要求。总体而言,65/98(66.3%)的偏倚风险较低。系统评价聚焦于非洲、加勒比和黑人(66/98;67.3%)、男男性行为者(32/98;32.7%)、注射吸毒者(6/98;6.1%)、性工作者和囚犯(均为4/98;4.1%)。干预措施包括:综合措施(37/98;37.8%)、数字化措施(22/98;22.4%)、行为或教育措施(9/98;9.2%)、同伴或基于社区的措施(8/98;8.2%)、卫生系统措施(7/98;7.1%)、药物调整措施(6/98;6.1%)、经济措施(4/98;4.1%)、基于药房的措施(3/98;3.1%)或任务转移措施(2/98;2.0%)。大多数评价得出干预措施有效的结论(69/98;70.4%),17.3%(17/98)为中性结论或结论不明确,12.2%(12/98)。知识空白包括纳入原始研究的参与者类型(未纳入弱势群体)、原始研究的质量较差以及干预措施针对性不强(并非为弱势群体设计)。据报告,数字化、综合措施以及基于同伴/社区的干预措施在整个护理过程中均有效。
护理级联中的干预措施大多聚焦于依从性,未充分涵盖所有弱势群体。