↓ Skip to main content

Predictors and correlates of adherence to combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) for chronic HIV infection: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
322 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
281 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Predictors and correlates of adherence to combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) for chronic HIV infection: a meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Medicine, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12916-014-0142-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nienke Langebeek, Elizabeth H Gisolf, Peter Reiss, Sigrid C Vervoort, Thóra B Hafsteinsdóttir, Clemens Richter, Mirjam AG Sprangers, Pythia T Nieuwkerk

Abstract

BackgroundAdherence to combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) is a key predictor of the success of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment, and is potentially amenable to intervention. Insight into predictors or correlates of non-adherence to ART may help guide targets for the development of adherence-enhancing interventions. Our objective was to review evidence on predictors/correlates of adherence to ART, and to aggregate findings into quantitative estimates of their impact on adherence.MethodsWe searched PubMed for original English-language papers, published between 1996 and June 2014, and the reference lists of all relevant articles found. Studies reporting on predictors/correlates of adherence of adults prescribed ART for chronic HIV infection were included without restriction to adherence assessment method, study design or geographical location. Two researchers independently extracted the data from the same papers. Random effects models with inverse variance weights were used to aggregate findings into pooled effects estimates with 95% confidence intervals. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was used as the common effect size. The impact of study design features (adherence assessment method, study design, and the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI) of the country in which the study was set) was investigated using categorical mixed effects meta-regression.ResultsIn total, 207 studies were included. The following predictors/correlates were most strongly associated with adherence: adherence self-efficacy (SMD¿=¿0.603, P¿=¿0.001), current substance use (SMD¿=¿¿0.395, P¿=¿0.001), concerns about ART (SMD¿=¿¿0.388, P¿=¿0.001), beliefs about the necessity/utility of ART (SMD¿=¿0.357, P¿=¿0.001), trust/satisfaction with the HIV care provider (SMD¿=¿0.377, P¿=¿0.001), depressive symptoms (SMD¿=¿¿0.305, P¿=¿0.001), stigma about HIV (SMD¿=¿¿0.282, P¿=¿0.001), and social support (SMD¿=¿0.237, P¿=¿0.001). Smaller but significant associations were observed for the following being prescribed a protease inhibitor-containing regimen (SMD¿=¿¿0.196, P¿=¿0.001), daily dosing frequency (SMD¿=¿¿0.193, P¿=¿0.001), financial constraints (SMD ¿0.187, P¿=¿0.001) and pill burden (SMD¿=¿¿0.124, P¿=¿0.001). Higher trust/satisfaction with the HIV care provider, a lower daily dosing frequency, and fewer depressive symptoms were more strongly related with higher adherence in low and medium HDI countries than in high HDI countries.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that adherence-enhancing interventions should particularly target psychological factors such as self-efficacy and concerns/beliefs about the efficacy and safety of ART. Moreover, these findings suggest that simplification of regimens might have smaller but significant effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 281 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 280 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 53 19%
Researcher 46 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 8%
Student > Bachelor 17 6%
Other 44 16%
Unknown 58 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 93 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 11%
Social Sciences 28 10%
Psychology 26 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 3%
Other 27 10%
Unknown 69 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 June 2017.
All research outputs
#3,292,033
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,875
of 3,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,018
of 236,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#36
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,448 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 236,480 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.