Sexually transmitted diseases · 2024
Partner Characteristics and HIV Outcomes Among Partners Reached by Phone Versus In-Person for Assisted Partner Services in Western Kenya.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Roy Paladhi Unmesha, Kariithi Edward, Otieno George, Hughes James P, Lagat Harison, Sharma Monisha, Masyuko Sarah, Macharia Paul, Bosire Rose, Mugambi Mary, Farquhar Carey, Katz David A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Assisted partner services (APS) is an effective strategy for testing people with undiagnosed HIV, but there is limited information on the relative reach and effectiveness of phone versus in-person contact.
METHODS: We analyzed data from 31 facilities in Western Kenya providing APS to female index clients newly HIV diagnosed, their male partners, and female partners of men newly HIV diagnosed. Assisted partner services providers attempted contacting partners using phone first and, if unsuccessful, in-person in the community. Using log-linear mixed models, we estimated relative risks (RRs) between phone being the final contact method and partner characteristics and HIV outcomes.
RESULTS: From May 2018 to March 2020, 2534 female index clients named 7614 male partners, of whom 772 (10.1%) tested positive and named an additional 4956 non-index female partners. Of 11,912 (94.7%) partners reached, 5179 (43.5%) were via phone and 6733 (56.5%) in-person. Of 8076 testing-eligible partners, 99.7% tested and 11.2% first-time tested. Of those tested, 13.1% were newly diagnosed, of whom 87.0% linked to care. Newly diagnosed partners were less likely to have been reached by phone versus in-person (9.8% vs. 15.9%; adjusted relative risk, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.70). Being reached by phone was not significantly associated with testing, first-time testing, or linkage to care.
CONCLUSIONS: In an APS program that reached 94% of elicited partners, fewer than half were successfully contacted by phone. A combined phone and in-person approach is likely essential for equitable, effective APS.
METHODS: We analyzed data from 31 facilities in Western Kenya providing APS to female index clients newly HIV diagnosed, their male partners, and female partners of men newly HIV diagnosed. Assisted partner services providers attempted contacting partners using phone first and, if unsuccessful, in-person in the community. Using log-linear mixed models, we estimated relative risks (RRs) between phone being the final contact method and partner characteristics and HIV outcomes.
RESULTS: From May 2018 to March 2020, 2534 female index clients named 7614 male partners, of whom 772 (10.1%) tested positive and named an additional 4956 non-index female partners. Of 11,912 (94.7%) partners reached, 5179 (43.5%) were via phone and 6733 (56.5%) in-person. Of 8076 testing-eligible partners, 99.7% tested and 11.2% first-time tested. Of those tested, 13.1% were newly diagnosed, of whom 87.0% linked to care. Newly diagnosed partners were less likely to have been reached by phone versus in-person (9.8% vs. 15.9%; adjusted relative risk, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.70). Being reached by phone was not significantly associated with testing, first-time testing, or linkage to care.
CONCLUSIONS: In an APS program that reached 94% of elicited partners, fewer than half were successfully contacted by phone. A combined phone and in-person approach is likely essential for equitable, effective APS.