A two-stage sampling method for clinical surveillance of individuals in care for HIV infection in the United States.

Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention-Surveillance and Epidemiology, National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA.
Public Health Reports (Impact Factor: 1.64). 120(3):230-9.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The goals of this study were two-fold: (1) to describe methods for drawing a population-based sample of individuals in care for HIV infection and (2) to compare data from the sample with data from existing surveillance systems that describe care for HIV.
The authors implemented a two-stage sampling method, using local HIV/AIDS surveillance data as a sampling frame of HIV care providers in three states. At selected providers, medical records of a random sample of patients were abstracted.
The medical records of a number of patients, ranging from 253 to 374 individuals per state, were abstracted. The demographics of sampled individuals and of individuals reported to the local HIV/AIDS surveillance program were similar; however, differences existed in the proportion of individuals receiving HIV care consistent with treatment guidelines between the sample and a contemporary facility-based supplemental surveillance project. The median design effect for outcomes collected in the sample was 1.8 (range=0.5-29.6).
This survey method is feasible for collecting population-based data on patients in care for HIV. Sample size and some design elements should be changed in future studies to increase precision of estimates and usefulness of data for local planning and evaluation.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Visiting a medical provider less frequently than clinical circumstances would suggest is appropriate has been reported to be associated with worse clinical outcomes for patients living with HIV infection. Patients with less frequent attendance to HIV care also may be systematically underrepresented in research or surveillance studies that enroll patients sequentially over a specified enrollment period - for example several months. For both reasons, understanding factors associated with time to care visit is important. We used data from the Adult and Adolescent Spectrum of HIV Disease (ASD) project, a multi-site clinical outcomes surveillance system that enrolled and followed patients in care for HIV prospectively from 1990 to 2004. For this analysis, we used data from all patients observed in ASD at least one time before 1 January 2003, and who had at least one HIV care visit in 2003. We documented time to first annual HIV care visit for each patient, and used Kaplan-Meier plots and proportional hazards regression to describe factors associated with longer time to care visit. A total of 12,135 patients had ≥1 care visit during 2003 and were included in the analysis. Of these, 81%, 88%, and 95% had their first visit within three, four, and six months, respectively. In multivariate analysis, having a delayed (later) care visit was associated with not ever having had an AIDS diagnosis, having an HIV RNA concentration ≥10,000 copies/mL, having a current CD4 count <100 cells/µL, having no health insurance, and not being currently prescribed antiretroviral therapy. Having a delayed care visit was not associated with race/ethnicity or age. Having a delayed first annual HIV care visit was associated with higher viremia, lower CD4 cell count, and lack of health insurance. Interventions to address these factors are likely to ameliorate some of the consequences of HIV. For studies enrolling patients in care for HIV over a finite time period, an enrollment period of four-six months should sufficiently reflect the patient population seen in a one-year period, including those attending care infrequently.
    AIDS Care 10/2011; 23(10):1314-20. DOI:10.1080/09540121.2011.555746 · 1.60 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Care Act (now the Treatment Modernization Act; Ryan White Program, or RWP) is a source of federal public funding for HIV care in the United States. The Health Services and Resources Administration requires that facilities or providers who receive RWP funds ensure that HIV health services are accessible and delivered according to established HIV-related treatment guidelines. We used data from population-based samples of persons in care for HIV infection in three states to compare the quality of HIV care in facilities supported by the RWP, with facilities not supported by the RWP. Within each area (King County in Washington State; southern Louisiana; and Michigan), a probability sample of patients receiving care for HIV infection in 1998 was drawn. Based on medical records abstraction, information was collected on prescription of antiretroviral therapy according to treatment recommendations, prescription of prophylactic therapy, and provision of recommended vaccinations and screening tests. We calculated population-level estimates of the extent to which HIV care was provided according to then-current treatment guidelines in RWP-supported and non-RWP-supported facilities. For all treatment outcomes analyzed, the compliance with care guidelines was at least as good for patients who received care at RWP-supported (vs non-RWP supported) facilities. For some outcomes in some states, delivery of recommended care was significantly more common for patients receiving care in RWP-supported facilities: for example, in Louisiana, patients receiving care in RWP-supported facilities were more likely to receive indicated prophylaxis for Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia and Mycobacterium avium complex, and in all three states, women receiving care in RWP-supported facilities were more likely to have received an annual Pap smear. The quality of HIV care provided in 1998 to patients in RWP-supported facilities was of equivalent or better quality than in non-RWP supported facilities; however, there were significant opportunities for improvement in all facility types. Data from population-based clinical outcomes surveillance data can be used as part of a broader strategy to evaluate the quality of publicly-supported HIV care.
    PLoS ONE 02/2008; 3(9):e3250. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0003250 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    AIDS and Behavior 01/2005; 9:251-265. · 3.49 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 27, 2014