Computer-based intervention in HIV clinical care setting improves antiretroviral adherence: the LifeWindows Project.

We evaluated the efficacy of LifeWindows, a theory-based, computer-administered antiretroviral (ARV) therapy adherence support intervention, delivered to HIV + patients at routine clinical care visits. 594 HIV + adults receiving HIV care at five clinics were randomized to intervention or control arms. Intervention vs. control impact in the intent-to-treat sample (including participants whose ARVs had been entirely discontinued, who infrequently attended care, or infrequently used LifeWindows) did not reach significance. Intervention impact in the On Protocol sample (328 intervention and control arm participants whose ARVs were not discontinued, who attended care and were exposed to LifeWindows regularly) was significant. On Protocol intervention vs. control participants achieved significantly higher levels of perfect 3-day ACTG-assessed adherence over time, with sensitivity analyses maintaining this effect down to 70% adherence. This study supports the utility of LifeWindows and illustrates that patients on ARVs who persist in care at clinical care sites can benefit from adherence promotion software.

Information-motivation-behavioral skills barriers associated with intentional versus unintentional ARV non-adherence behavior among HIV+ patients in clinical care.

Since the arrival of antiretroviral (ARV) therapy, HIV has become better characterized as a chronic disease rather than a terminal illness, depending in part on one's ability to maintain relatively high levels of adherence. Despite research concerning barriers and facilitators of ARV adherence behavior, relatively little is known about specific challenges faced by HIV-positive persons who report "taking a break" from their ARV medications. The present study employed the Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills Model of ARV adherence as a framework for understanding adherence-related barriers that may differentiate between non-adherent patients who report "taking a break" versus those who do not report "taking a break" from their ARV medications. A sample of 327 HIV-positive patients who reported less than 100% adherence at study baseline provided data for this research. Participants who reported "taking a break" from their HIV medications without first talking to their healthcare provider were classified as intentionally non-adherent, while those who did not report "taking a break" without first talking with their healthcare provider were classified as unintentionally non-adherent. Analyses examined differences between intentionally versus unintentionally non-adherent patients with respect to demographic characteristics and responses to the adherence-related information, motivation, and behavioral skills questionnaire items. Few differences were observed among the groups on demographics, adherence-related information, or adherence-related motivation; however, significant differences were observed on about half of the adherence-related behavioral skills items. Implications for future research, as well as the design of specific intervention components to reduce intentionally non-adherent behavior, are discussed.

Visual analog scale of ART adherence: association with 3-day self-report and adherence barriers.

BACKGROUND: Brief self-reports of antiretroviral therapy adherence that place minimal burden on patients and clinic staff are promising alternatives to more elaborate adherence assessments currently in use. This research assessed the association between self-reported adherence on visual analog scale (VASs) and an existing, more complex self-reported measure of adherence, the AACTG, and the degree to which each method distinguished optimally and suboptimally adherent patients in terms of reported barriers to adherence. METHODS: HIV-infected patients (N = 147) at a southeastern US clinic completed a computerized assessment including an antiretroviral therapy adherence VAS, a modified version of the AACTG, and a measure of adherence. RESULTS: Adherence rates were comparable across the AACTG (81%) and VAS (87%); they significantly correlated (r = 0.585) and produced identical classification of optimal (>90%) or suboptimal (<90%) adherence for 66% of patients. In general, VAS scores tended to be higher than AACTG scores. Suboptimally adherent patients reported more adherence barriers than those classified as optimally adherent, and those so classified by the VAS reported considerably more barriers to adherence than those so classified by the AACTG. CONCLUSIONS: Results generally support the construct validity of the VAS and its use as an easily administered assessment tool that can identify patients with barriers to adherence who might benefit from adherence support interventions.