Definition of a core set of quality indicators for the assessment of HIV/AIDS clinical care: A systematic review

BMC Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 1.71). 06/2013; 13(1):236. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-236
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Several organizations and individual authors have been proposing quality indicators for the assessment of clinical care in HIV/AIDS patients. Nevertheless, the definition of a consensual core set of indicators remains controversial and its practical use is largely limited. This study aims not only to identify and characterize these indicators through a systematic literature review but also to propose a parsimonious model based on those most used.
MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Cochrane databases and ISI Web of Knowledge, as well as official websites of organizations dealing with HIV/AIDS care, were searched for articles and information proposing HIV/AIDS clinical care quality indicators. The ones that are on patient's perspective and based on services set were excluded. Data extraction, using a predefined data sheet based on Cochrane recommendations, was done by one of the authors while a second author rechecked the extracted data for any inconsistency.
A total of 360 articles were identified in our search query but only 12 of them met the inclusion criteria. We also identified one relevant site. Overall, we identified 65 quality indicators for HIV/AIDS clinical care distributed as following: outcome (n=15) and process-related (n=50) indicators; generic (n=36) and HIV/AIDS disease-specific (n=29) indicators; baseline examinations (n=19), screening (n=9), immunization (n=4), prophylaxis (n=5), HIV monitoring (n=16), and therapy (=12) indicators.
There are several studies that set up HIV clinical care indicators, with only a part of them useful to assess the HIV clinical care. More importantly, HIV/AIDS clinical care indicators need to be valid, reliable and most of all feasible.

85 Reads
  • Source
    • "Ahonkhai and colleagues [12] focus on the “continuum of care” for HIV/AIDS from HIV testing and diagnosis to antiretroviral therapy initiation and follow-up, in their call for improved indicators to evaluate local interventions in resource-limited settings. The systematic review of quality indicators for clinical care provision in HIV/AIDS by Catumbela et al. [13] similarly focuses on indicators for screening of opportunistic diseases and sexually transmitted infections, immunization, prophylaxis, HIV monitoring and therapy. This focus on clinical care neglects the social outcomes of care provision, including issues of inequalities in access to care for marginalized groups. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Contemporary HIV-related theory and policy emphasize the importance of addressing the social drivers of HIV risk and vulnerability for a long-term response. Consequently, increasing attention is being given to social and structural interventions, and to social outcomes of HIV interventions. Appropriate indicators for social outcomes are needed in order to institutionalize the commitment to addressing social outcomes. This paper critically assesses the current state of social indicators within international HIV/AIDS monitoring and evaluation frameworks. Methods We analyzed the indicator frameworks of six international organizations involved in efforts to improve and synchronize the monitoring and evaluation of the HIV/AIDS response. Our analysis classifies the 328 unique indicators according to what they measure and assesses the degree to which they offer comprehensive measurement across three dimensions: domains of the social context, levels of change and organizational capacity. Results and discussion The majority of indicators focus on individual-level (clinical and behavioural) interventions and outcomes, neglecting structural interventions, community interventions and social outcomes (e.g. stigma reduction; community capacity building; policy-maker sensitization). The main tool used to address social aspects of HIV/AIDS is the disaggregation of data by social group. This raises three main limitations. Indicator frameworks do not provide comprehensive coverage of the diverse social drivers of the epidemic, particularly neglecting criminalization, stigma, discrimination and gender norms. There is a dearth of indicators for evaluating the social impacts of HIV interventions. Indicators of organizational capacity focus on capacity to effectively deliver and manage clinical services, neglecting capacity to respond appropriately and sustainably to complex social contexts. Conclusions Current indicator frameworks cannot adequately assess the social outcomes of HIV interventions. This limits knowledge about social drivers and inhibits the institutionalization of social approaches within the HIV/AIDS response. We conclude that indicator frameworks should expand to offer a more comprehensive range of social indicators for monitoring and evaluation and to include indicators of organizational capacity to tackle social drivers. While such expansion poses challenges for standardization and coordination, we argue that the complexity of interventions producing social outcomes necessitates capacity for flexibility and local tailoring in monitoring and evaluation.
    Journal of the International AIDS Society 08/2014; 17(1):19073. DOI:10.7448/IAS.17.1.19073 · 5.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: In developed countries, HIV care is mostly provided by trained specialist healthcare professionals. Due to the increasing demand for HIV care, pressure on healthcare providers to reduce cost and the current global economic constraints, many developed countries are searching for alternative HIV care models. This review aims to consider whether HIV treatment and care can be provided as effectively and safely by doctors and nurses with no HIV-specialist training compared to those with HIV-specialist training. Methods: Three electronic bibliographic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies conducted between January 1996 and March 2015. Manual searches of reference lists of all relevant reports retrieved from the electronic databases were conducted. All comparative studies examining the quality of HIV care provided by different types of healthcare providers in developed countries were included. Results: Nine observational studies involving 27,015 patients were included in the review. Eight studies were conducted in the USA and one study in Switzerland. Healthcare providers with HIV-related expertise and or training and those without HIV-related expertise or training who collaborated with providers with HIV-related expertise and or training outperformed other healthcare providers in many virological, immunological and ART-related outcomes. Conclusion: This review found moderate quality evidence that HIV care can be provided effectively by non-HIV specialists if they have access to HIV specialists or experts for advice and support.
    World Journal of AIDS 08/2015; 5(3):161-174. DOI:10.4236/wja.2015.53019