Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Glob Health Sci Pract ; 9(4): 978-989, 2021 12 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1633289

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Faced with the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, governments worldwide instituted lockdowns to curtail virus spread. Health facility closures and travel restrictions disrupted access to antiretroviral (ARV) therapy for people living with HIV. This report describes how HIV programs in Indonesia, Laos, Nepal, and Nigeria supported treatment continuation by introducing home delivery of ARVs. METHODS: Staff supporting the programs provided accounts of when and how decisions were taken to support ARV home delivery. They captured programmatic information about home delivery implementation using an intervention documentation tool. The 4 country experiences revealed lessons learned about factors favoring successful expansion of ARV home delivery. RESULTS: Three of the countries relied on existing networks of community health workers for ARV delivery; the fourth country, Indonesia, relied on a private sector courier service. Across the 4 countries, between 19% and 51% of eligible clients were served by home delivery. The experiences showed that ARV home delivery is feasible and acceptable to health service providers, clients, and other stakeholders. Essential to success was rapid mobilization of stakeholders who led the design of the home delivery mechanisms and provided leadership support of the service innovations. Timely service adaptation was made possible by pre-existing differentiated models of care supportive of community-based ARV provision by outreach workers. Home delivery models prioritized protection of client confidentiality and prevention measures for COVID-19. Sustainability of the innovation depends on reinforcement of the commodity management infrastructure and investment in financing mechanisms. CONCLUSION: Home delivery of ARVs is a feasible client-centered approach to be included among the options for decentralized drug distribution. It serves as a measure for expanding access to care both when access to health services is disrupted and under routine circumstances.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , HIV Infections , Pharmaceutical Preparations , Communicable Disease Control , HIV Infections/drug therapy , Humans , Indonesia , Laos , Nepal , Nigeria , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Fam Med Community Health ; 9(4)2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1626835

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a one-time cash transfer of $C1000 in people who are unable to physically distance due to insufficient income. DESIGN: Open-label, multi-centre, randomised superiority trial. SETTING: Seven primary care sites in Ontario, Canada; six urban sites associated with St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto and one in Manitoulin Island. PARTICIPANTS: 392 individuals who reported trouble affording basic necessities due to disruptions related to COVID-19. INTERVENTION: After random allocation, participants either received the cash transfer of $C1000 (n=196) or physical distancing guidelines alone (n=196). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the maximum number of symptoms consistent with COVID-19 over 14 days. Secondary outcomes were meeting clinical criteria for COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 presence, number of close contacts, general health and ability to afford basic necessities. RESULTS: The primary outcome of number of symptoms reported by participants did not differ between groups after 2 weeks (cash transfer, mean 1.6 vs 1.9, ratio of means 0.83; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.24). There were no statistically significant effects on secondary outcomes of the meeting COVID-19 clinical criteria (7.9% vs 12.8%; risk difference -0.05; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.01), SARS-CoV-2 presence (0.5% vs 0.6%; risk difference 0.00 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02), mean number of close contacts (3.5 vs 3.7; rate ratio 1.10; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.46), general health very good or excellent (60% vs 63%; risk difference -0.03 95% CI -0.14 to 0.08) and ability to make ends meet (52% vs 51%; risk difference 0.01 95% CI -0.10 to 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: A single cash transfer did not reduce the COVID-19 symptoms or improve the ability to afford necessities. Further studies are needed to determine whether some groups may benefit from financial supports and to determine if a higher level of support is beneficial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04359264.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Financial Statements , Humans , Ontario/epidemiology , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Family medicine and community health ; 9(4), 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1567643

ABSTRACT

Objective To evaluate the effect of a one-time cash transfer of $C1000 in people who are unable to physically distance due to insufficient income. Design Open-label, multi-centre, randomised superiority trial. Setting Seven primary care sites in Ontario, Canada;six urban sites associated with St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto and one in Manitoulin Island. Participants 392 individuals who reported trouble affording basic necessities due to disruptions related to COVID-19. Intervention After random allocation, participants either received the cash transfer of $C1000 (n=196) or physical distancing guidelines alone (n=196). Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the maximum number of symptoms consistent with COVID-19 over 14 days. Secondary outcomes were meeting clinical criteria for COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 presence, number of close contacts, general health and ability to afford basic necessities. Results The primary outcome of number of symptoms reported by participants did not differ between groups after 2 weeks (cash transfer, mean 1.6 vs 1.9, ratio of means 0.83;95% CI 0.56 to 1.24). There were no statistically significant effects on secondary outcomes of the meeting COVID-19 clinical criteria (7.9% vs 12.8%;risk difference −0.05;95% CI −0.11 to 0.01), SARS-CoV-2 presence (0.5% vs 0.6%;risk difference 0.00 95% CI −0.02 to 0.02), mean number of close contacts (3.5 vs 3.7;rate ratio 1.10;95% CI 0.83 to 1.46), general health very good or excellent (60% vs 63%;risk difference −0.03 95% CI −0.14 to 0.08) and ability to make ends meet (52% vs 51%;risk difference 0.01 95% CI −0.10 to 0.12). Conclusions A single cash transfer did not reduce the COVID-19 symptoms or improve the ability to afford necessities. Further studies are needed to determine whether some groups may benefit from financial supports and to determine if a higher level of support is beneficial. Trial registration number NCT04359264.

4.
J Int AIDS Soc ; 24 Suppl 6: e25820, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1487494

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The rapid increase in the number of people living with HIV (PLHIV) on antiretroviral therapy (ART) in Akwa Ibom and Cross River states in Nigeria led to overcrowding at clinics. Patients were devolved to receive ART refills through five differentiated service delivery (DSD) models: fast-track (FT), adolescent refill clubs (ARCs), community pharmacy ART refill programs (CPARPs), community ART refill clubs (CARCs) and community ART refill groups (CARGs) designed to meet the needs of different groups of PLHIV. In the context of COVID-19-related travel restrictions, out-of-facility models offered critical mechanisms for continuity of treatment. We compared retention and viral suppression among those devolved to DSD with those who continued standard care at facilities. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among patients devolved to DSD from January 2018 to December 2020. Bivariate analyses were conducted to assess differences in retention and viral suppression by socio-demographic characteristics. Kaplan-Meier assessed retention at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Differences in proportions were compared using the chi-square test; a p-value of <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 40,800 PLHIV from 84 facilities received ART through the five models: CARC (53%), FT (19.1%), ARC (12.1%), CPARP (10.4%) and CARG (5.4%). Retention rates at 6 months exceeded 96% for all models compared to 94% among those continuing standard care. Among those using DSD, retention rate at 12 months was higher among adults than children (97.8% vs. 96.7%, p = 0.04). No significant sex differences in retention rates were found among those enrolled in DSD. Viral suppression rates among PLHIV served through DSD were significantly higher among adults than children (95.4% vs. 89.2%; p <0.01). Among adults, 95.4% enrolled in DSD were virally suppressed compared to 91.8% of those in standard care (p <0.01). For children, 89.2% enrolled in DSD were virally suppressed compared to 83.2% in standard care (p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: PLHIV receiving ART through DSD models had retention but higher viral suppression rates compared to those receiving standard care. Expanding DSD during COVID-19 has helped ensure uninterrupted access to ART in Nigeria. Further scale-up is warranted to decongest facilities and improve clinical outcomes.


Subject(s)
Anti-HIV Agents , COVID-19 , HIV Infections , Adolescent , Adult , Anti-HIV Agents/therapeutic use , Child , Female , HIV Infections/drug therapy , HIV Infections/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Nigeria , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL