ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: HIV viral load (VL) testing in resource-limited settings is often centralised, limiting access. In Myanmar, we assessed outcomes according to VL access and the VL cascade (case management after a first high VL result) before and after near point-of-care (POC) VL was introduced. METHODS: Routine programme data from people living with HIV (PLHIV) on antiretroviral therapy (ART) were used. We assessed the odds of getting a VL test done by year. Attrition and mortality two years after ART initiation were compared between three groups of PLHIV with different access to VL testing using Kaplan-Meier analysis. We compared VL cascades in those with a first VL result before and after near POC VL testing became available. With logistic regression, predictors of confirmed virological failure after a first high VL in the POC era were explored. RESULTS: Among 4291 PLHIV who started ART between July 2009 and June 2018, 794 (18.5%) became eligible for VL testing when it was not available, 2388 (55.7%) when centralised laboratory-based VL testing was available, and 1109 (25.8%) when near POC VL testing was available. Between 2010 and 2019, the odds of getting a VL test among those eligible increased with each year (OR: 5.21 [95% CI: 4.95-5.48]). Attrition and mortality were not different in the three groups. When comparing PLHIV with a first VL result before and after implementation of the near POC VL testing, in the latter, more had a first VL test (92% versus 15%, p<0.001), less had a first high VL result (5% versus 14%, p<0.001), and more had confirmed virological failure (67% versus 47%, p = 0.013). Having a first VL ≥5000 copies/mL after near POC implementation was associated with confirmed virological failure (adjusted OR: 2.61 [95% CI: 1.02-6.65]). CONCLUSION: Near POC VL testing enabled rapid increase of VL coverage and a well-managed VL cascade in Myanmar.
Subject(s)
Anti-HIV Agents , HIV Infections , Humans , Point-of-Care Systems , Viral Load , Myanmar/epidemiology , HIV Infections/diagnosis , HIV Infections/drug therapy , Serologic Tests , Point-of-Care Testing , Anti-HIV Agents/therapeutic useABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Curricula are reviewed and adapted in response to a perceived need to improve interprofessional collaboration for the benefit of patient care. In 2005, the module Interprofessional Collaboration in Healthcare (IPCIHC) was developed by the Antwerp University Association (AUHA). The program was based upon a concept of five steps to IPCIHC. This educational module aims to help graduates obtain the competence of interprofessional collaborators in health care. METHODS: Over a span of 15 years, the IPCIHC module is evaluated annually by students and provided with feedback by the tutors and steering committee. Data up to 2014 were supplemented with data up to 2019. For the students the same evaluative one-group, post-test design was used to gather data using a structured questionnaire. The tutors' and students' feedback was thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Based upon the results and the contextual changing needs, the program was adjusted. Between 2005 and 2019, a total of 8616 evaluations were received (response rate: 78%). Eighty percent of the respondents indicated through the evaluations that they were convinced of the positive effect of the IPCIHC module on their interprofessional development. Over the years, two more disciplines enrolled into this program and also education programs form the Netherlands. CONCLUSIONS: After 15 years, positive outcomes are showed, and future health professionals have a better understanding of interprofessional learning. Gathering feedback and annually evaluation helped to provide a targeted interprofessional program addressing contextual changes. The challenge remains to keep on educating future healthcare providers in interprofessional collaboration in order to achieve an increase in observable interprofessional behaviour towards other professional groups.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and analyze various ways that health systems frameworks interact with the social determinants of health (SDH), as well as the implications of these interactions. METHODS: This was a review of the literature conducted in 2012 using predetermined criteria to search three comprehensive databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, and the World Bank E-Library) and grey literature for articles with any consideration of the SDH within health systems frameworks. Snowball sampling and expert opinion were used to include any potentially relevant articles not identified by the initial search. In total, 4 152 documents were found; of these, 27 were included in the analyses. RESULTS: Five main categories of interaction between health systems and SDH emerged: Bounded, Production, Reciprocal, Joint, and Systems models. At one end were the Bounded and Production models, which conceive the SDH to be outside the health system; at the other end, the Joint and Systems models, which visualize a continuous and dynamic interaction. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the complex and dynamic interactions among different kinds of organizations involved in and with the health system,the Joint and Systems models seem to best reflect these interactions, and should thereby guide stakeholders in planning for change.
OBJETIVO: Examinar y analizar sistemáticamente las diversas maneras en que los marcos de los sistemas de salud abordan las interacciones con los determinantes sociales de la salud (DSS), así como las implicaciones de estas interacciones. MÉTODOS: En el 2012, se llevó a cabo una revisión de la bibliografía mediante la adopción de criterios predeterminados para consultar tres bases de datos integrales (PubMed, la Base de Datos Cochrane de Revisiones Sistemáticas y la Biblioteca electrónica del Banco Mundial) y la bibliografía gris, en busca de artículos que incluyeran cualquier tipo de consideración de los DSS en los marcos de los sistemas de salud. Se utilizó el muestreo de bola de nieve y la opinión de expertos con objeto de incluir cualquier artículo potencialmente pertinente no detectado en la búsqueda inicial. En total, se encontraron 4 152 documentos; de estos, 27 se incluyeron en el análisis. RESULTADOS: Se observaron cinco categorías o modelos principales de interacción entre los sistemas de salud y los DSS: Vinculado, de Producción, Recíproco, Conjunto y de Sistemas. En un extremo se situaban los modelos Vinculado y de Producción, que contemplan los DSS como externos al sistema de salud; en el otro extremo, los modelos Conjunto y de Sistemas, que conciben una interacción continua y dinámica entre ellos. CONCLUSIONES: Si se tienen en cuentas las complejas y dinámicas interacciones entre los diferentes tipos de organizaciones involucradas en y con el sistema de salud, los modelos Conjunto y de Sistemas parecen reflejar mejor estas interacciones y, en consecuencia, son los que deberían guiar a los interesados directos en la planificación de los cambios.
