Jhuti Diya, Zakaryan Gohar, El-Kechen Hussein, Rehman Nadia, Youssef Mark, Garcia Cristian, Arora Vaibhav, Zani Babalwa, Leenus Alvin, Wu Michael, Makanjuola Oluwatoni, Mbuagbaw Lawrence
Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Department of Health, Behavior, and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
HIV AIDS (Auckl). 2023 May 25;15:257-265. doi: 10.2147/HIV.S406524. eCollection 2023.
Engagement in the HIV care cascade is required for people living with HIV (PLWH) to achieve an undetectable viral load. However, varying definitions of engagement exist, contributing to heterogeneity in research regarding how many individuals are actively participating and benefitting from care. A standardized definition is needed to enhance comparability and pooling of data from engagement studies.
The objective of this paper was to describe the various definitions for engagement used in HIV clinical trials.
Articles were retrieved from CASCADE, a database of 298 clinical trials conducted to improve the HIV care cascade (https://hivcarecascade.com/), curated by income level, vulnerable population, who delivered the intervention, the setting in which it was delivered, the intervention type, and the level of pragmatism of the intervention. Studies with engagement listed as an outcome were selected from this database.
13 studies were eligible, of which five did not provide an explicit definition for engagement. The remaining studies used one or more of the following: appointment adherence (n=6), laboratory testing (n=2), adherence to antiretroviral therapy (n=2), time specification (n=5), intervention adherence (n=5), and quality of interaction (n=1).
This paper highlights the existing diversity in definitions for engagement in the HIV care cascade and categorize these definitions into appointment adherence, laboratory testing, adherence to antiretroviral therapy, time specification, intervention adherence, and quality of interaction. We recommend consensus on how to describe and measure engagement.
艾滋病毒感染者(PLWH)要实现病毒载量不可检测,就需要参与艾滋病毒治疗流程。然而,对于参与的定义各不相同,这导致在研究有多少个体正在积极参与并从治疗中受益时存在异质性。需要一个标准化定义来提高参与研究数据的可比性和汇总性。
本文的目的是描述艾滋病毒临床试验中使用的各种参与定义。
从CASCADE数据库中检索文章,该数据库包含298项为改善艾滋病毒治疗流程而开展的临床试验(https://hivcarecascade.com/),按收入水平、弱势群体、实施干预的人员、实施干预的环境、干预类型以及干预的实用程度进行整理。从该数据库中选择将参与列为结果的研究。
13项研究符合条件,其中5项未对参与给出明确的定义。其余研究使用了以下一种或多种定义:预约依从性(n = 6)、实验室检测(n = 2)、抗逆转录病毒疗法依从性(n = 2)、时间规定(n = 5)、干预依从性(n = 5)和互动质量(n = 1)。
本文强调了艾滋病毒治疗流程中参与定义的现有多样性,并将这些定义归类为预约依从性、实验室检测、抗逆转录病毒疗法依从性、时间规定、干预依从性和互动质量。我们建议就如何描述和衡量参与达成共识。