Article

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.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Victor F. Certal
  • 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.
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2014 · Journal of the International AIDS Society
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Without the safety and effective vaccine for HIV the HIVvoluntary counseling testing (VCT) has been documented as a central component ofcomprehensive HIV prevention strategies targeting individual risk reduction by modified high risk behaviors. However, the coverage of HIV testing among men who have sex with men (MSM) is suboptimal. Moreove, the information regarding to factors associated with HIV testing among young Thai MSM are limited and not well understood. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and factors associated with HIV testing among young MSM in Bangkok, Thailand. A cross-sectional study was conducted in Bangkok. Descriptive statistics were presented with crude- and adjusted-odds ratios with 95% confidence interval and the logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with prior HIV testing. Fifty-six participants were enrolled into study and 51.8% of men previously had an HIV test. After adjusting for potential confounders, logistic regression revealed that older age was positively associated with HIV testing (AOR = 14.4, 95% CI 1.88-111.22) while perceived at low riskfor HIV infection was inversely association with HIV testing (AOR = 0.1, 95% CI 0.02-0.94). Young MSM in Thailand are at risk for HIV infection and uptake of HIV testing is suboptimal. Understanding the motivators and barriers to HIV testing are essential to planning and improving the effective HIVprevention interventions-relevance to HIV-serostatus.
    No preview · Article · Feb 2014 · Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To examine approaches being used to evaluate and improve quality of HIV clinical services we searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library collection, EMBASE, Global Health, and Web of Science databases for articles and abstracts focused on evaluating or improving quality of HIV clinical services. We extracted country income level, targeted clinical services, and quality evaluation approaches, data sources, and criteria. Fifty journal articles and 46 meeting abstracts were included. Of the 96 studies reviewed, 65% were programme evaluations, 71% focused on low- and middle-income countries, and 65% focused on antiretroviral therapy services. With regard to quality, 45% used a quality improvement model or programme, 13% set a quality threshold, and 51% examined patient records to evaluate quality. No studies provided a definition for quality HIV care. Quality assurance and improvement of HIV clinical services is increasingly important. This review highlights gaps in knowledge for future research, and may also help countries and programmes develop their HIV care quality improvement frameworks.
    No preview · Article · Jul 2014 · International Journal of STD & AIDS
Show more