Incentives and enablers to improve adherence in tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: Patient adherence to medications, particularly for conditions requiring prolonged treatment such as tuberculosis (TB), is frequently less than ideal and can result in poor treatment outcomes. Material incentives to reward good behaviour and enablers to remove economic barriers to accessing care are sometimes given in the form of cash, vouchers, or food to improve adherence. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of material incentives and enablers in patients undergoing diagnostic testing, or receiving prophylactic or curative therapy, for TB. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; LILACS; Science Citation Index; and reference lists of relevant publications up to 5 June 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of material incentives in patients being investigated for TB, or on treatment for latent or active TB. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included trials. We compared the effects of interventions using risk ratios (RR), and presented RRs with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 12 eligible trials. Ten were conducted in the USA: in adolescents (one trial), in injection drug or cocaine users (four trials), in homeless adults (three trials), and in prisoners (two trials). The remaining two trials, in general adult populations, were conducted in Timor-Leste and South Africa. Sustained incentive programmesOnly two trials have assessed whether material incentives and enablers can improve long-term adherence and completion of treatment for active TB, and neither demonstrated a clear benefit (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.14; two trials, 4356 participants; low quality evidence). In one trial, the incentive, given as a daily hot meal, was not well received by the population due to the inconvenience of attending the clinic at midday, whilst in the other trial, nurses distributing the vouchers chose to "ration" their distribution among eligible patients, giving only to those whom they felt were most deprived.Three trials assessed the effects of material incentives and enablers on completion of TB prophylaxis with mixed results (low quality evidence). A large effect was seen with regular cash incentives given to drug users at each clinic visit in a setting with extremely low treatment completion in the control group (treatment completion 52.8% intervention versus 3.6% control; RR 14.53, 95% CI 3.64 to 57.98; one trial, 108 participants), but no effects were seen in one trial assessing a cash incentive for recently released prisoners (373 participants), or another trial assessing material incentives offered by parents to teenagers (388 participants). Single once-only incentivesHowever in specific populations, such as recently released prisoners, drug users, and the homeless, trials show that material incentives probably do improve one-off clinic re-attendance for initiation or continuation of anti-TB prophylaxis (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.96; three trials, 595 participants; moderate quality evidence), and may increase the return rate for reading of tuberculin skin test results (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.29; two trials, 1371 participants; low quality evidence). Comparison of different types of incentivesSingle trials in specific sub-populations suggest that an immediate cash incentive may be more effective than delaying the incentive until completion of treatment (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.24; one trial, 300 participants; low quality evidence), cash incentives may be more effective than non-cash incentives (completion of TB prophylaxis: RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.56; one trial, 141 participants; low quality evidence; return for skin test reading: RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.19; one trial, 652 participants; low quality evidence); and higher cash incentives may be more effective than lower cash incentives (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.16; one trial, 404 participants; low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Material incentives and enablers may have some positive short term effects on clinic attendance, particularly for marginal populations such as drug users, recently released prisoners, and the homeless, but there is currently insufficient evidence to know if they can improve long term adherence to TB treatment.

The medical use of cannabis for reducing morbidity and mortality in patients with HIV/AIDS.

BACKGROUND: The use of cannabis (marijuana) or of its psychoactive ingredient delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) as a medicine has been highly contested in many settings.There have been claims that smoked or ingested cannabis, either in its natural form or artificial form (pharmaceutically manufactured drug such as dronabinol), improves the appetites of people with AIDS, results in weight gain and lifts mood, thus improving the quality of life. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to assess whether cannabis (in its natural or artificially produced form), either smoked or ingested, decreases the morbidity or mortality of patients infected with HIV. SEARCH METHODS: The search strategy was conducted to July 2012 and was based on that of the Cochrane HIV/AIDS Review Group. We searched the following databases: CENTRAL/CCTR, MEDLINE and EMBASE. In addition, searching was performed where necessary of journals, reference lists of articles, and conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: The review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any cannabis intervention, in any form, and administered by any route, in adults with HIV or AIDS, compared with placebo or with a known effective treatment, and conducted in a hospital, outpatient clinic, or home care setting. Quasi-randomised studies using any form of cannabis as an intervention in patients with HIV or AIDS were also included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data from the eligible studies were extracted and coded independently by two researchers, using a standardised data extraction form. Data were then analysed using RevMan 5.0. No meta-analyses were performed. MAIN RESULTS: A total of seven relevant studies were included in the review, reported in eight publications. All were randomised controlled studies, with four utilising a parallel group design, two a within-subject randomisation and two a cross-over design. All of the studies were of a fairly short duration, ranging from 21 days to 84 days. In only four papers (in effect, three studies) were sequence generation and allocation concealment judged to be adequate. The use of cannabis and rapidly acting cannabinoids posed considerable challenges for blinding, as the psychoactive effects are expected to be quickly discernible to study participants, particularly those who have been previous users of such products. Dronabinol was expected to be more easily blinded. The outcomes measured were variable, including change in weight, change in body fat (measured as a percentage of total body weight), change in appetite (measured on a visual analogue scale), change in caloric intake (measured in kcals/kg/24hr), change in nausea and vomiting (measured on a visual analogue scale), change in performance (measured by Karnofsky performance score or specific tests for memory and dexterity) and change in mood (measured on a visual analogue scale).The evidence for substantial effects on morbidity and mortality is currently limited. Data from only one relatively small study (n=139, of which only 88 were evaluable), conducted in the period before access to highly-active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), showed that patients administered dronabinol were twice as likely to gain 2kg or more in body weight (RR 2.09), but the confidence interval for this measure (95% CI 0.72 - 6.06) included unity. The mean weight gain in the dronabinol group was only 0.1kg, compared with a loss of 0.4kg in the placebo group. However, the quality of sequence generation and allocation concealment in this study, in which participants were randomised by centre, could not be assessed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite dronabinol being registered by at least some medicines regulatory authorities for the treatment of AIDS-associated anorexia, and some jurisdictions making allowances for the "medical" use of marijuana by patients with HIV/AIDS, evidence for the efficacy and safety of cannabis and cannabinoids in this setting is lacking. Such studies as have been performed have been of short duration, in small numbers of patients, and have focused on short-term measures of efficacy. Long-term data, showing a sustained effect on AIDS-related morbidity and mortality and safety in patients on effective antiretroviral therapy, has yet to be presented. Whether the available evidence is sufficient to justify a wide-ranging revisiting of medicines regulatory practice remains unclear.

Material incentives and enablers in the management of tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: Patient adherence to medications, particularly for conditions requiring prolonged treatment such as tuberculosis, is frequently less than ideal, and can result in poor treatment outcomes. Material incentives (given as cash, vouchers and tokens), have been used to improve adherence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of material incentives in people undergoing diagnostic testing, or receiving prophylactic or curative therapy, for tuberculosis. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; LILACS; Science Citation Index; and reference lists of relevant publications; to 22 June 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of material incentives in patients being investigated for tuberculosis, or on treatment for latent or active disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two authors independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The effects of interventions are compared using risk ratios (RR), and presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 eligible studies. Ten were conducted in the USA: in adolescents (one trial), in injection drug or cocaine users (four trials), in homeless adults (three trials), and in prisoners (two trials). One additional trial recruited malnourished men receiving active treatment for tuberculosis in Timor-Leste.Material incentives may increase the return rate for reading of tuberculin skin test results compared to normal care (two trials, 1371 participants: RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.29, low quality evidence).Similarly, incentives probably improve clinic re-attendance for initiation or continuation of antituberculosis prophylaxis (three trials, 595 participants: RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.96, moderate quality evidence), and may improve subsequent completion of prophylaxis in some settings (three trials, 869 participants: RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 4.58, low quality evidence).We currently don't know if incentives can improve long-term adherence and completion of antituberculosis treatment for active disease. Only one trial has assessed this and the incentive, given as a daily hot meal, was not well received by the population due to the inconvenience of attending the clinic at midday (one trial, 265 participants, RR 0.98, 95%CI 0.86 to 1.12, very low quality evidence).Several trials have compared different forms or levels of incentive. These comparisons remain limited to single trials and robust conclusions cannot be made. In summary, cash incentives may be more effective than non-cash incentives (return for test results: one trial, 651 participants: RR 1.13, 95%CI 1.07 to 1.19, low quality evidence, adherence to tuberculosis prophylaxis: one trial, 141 participants: RR 1.26, 95%CI 1.02 to 1.56, low quality evidence) and higher amounts of cash may be more effective than lower amounts (return for test results: one trial, 404 participants: RR 1.08, 95%CI 1.01 to 1.16, low quality evidence).Material incentives may also be more effective than motivational education at improving return for tuberculin skin test results (low quality evidence), but may be no more effective than peer counselling, or structured education at improving continuation or completion of prophylaxis (low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence to support the use of material incentives to improve return rates for tuberculosis diagnostic test results and adherence to antituberculosis preventive therapy. The data are currently limited to trials among predominantly male drug users, homeless, and prisoner subpopulations in the USA, and therefore the results are not easily generalised to the wider adult population, or to low- and middle-income countries, where the tuberculosis burden is highest.Further high-quality studies are needed to assess both the costs and effectiveness of incentives to improve adherence to long-term treatment of tuberculosis.

Barriers and facilitators of rendering HIV services by community health workers in sub-Saharan Africa: a meta-synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: To synthesise qualitative studies that address the barriers to and facilitators of providing HIV services by community health workers (CHWs) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). DESIGN: This meta-synthesis was guided by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. We included studies that were published between 2009 and 2019. The Ritchie and Spencer framework and the Supporting the Use of Research Evidence framework were used for thematic analysis and framework analysis, respectively. The Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument was used to assess the quality of selected studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Qualitative studies published between 2009 and 2019, that included CHWs linked directly or indirectly to the Ministry of Health and providing HIV services in the communities. INFORMATION SOURCES: An extensive search was conducted on the following databases: EBSCOhost- (ERIC; Health Source-Nursing/Academic Edition; MEDLINE Full Text), Google Scholar and PubMed. RESULTS: Barriers to rendering of HIV services by CHWs were community HIV stigma; lack of CHW respect, CHWs' poor education and training; poor stakeholders' involvement; poor access to the communities; shortage of CHWs; unsatisfactory incentives; lack of CHW support and supervision, lack of equipment and supplies and social barriers due to culture, language and political structures. The altruistic behaviour of CHWs and the availability of job facilitated the provision of HIV services. CONCLUSION: The delivery of HIV services by CHWs in SSA is faced by more lingering barriers than facilitators. Planners and policymakers can minimise the barriers by investing in both CHW and community training regarding HIV services. Furthermore, sufficient funding should be allocated to the programme to ensure its efficiency. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020160012.