↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of self-report and antiretroviral detection to inform estimates of antiretroviral therapy coverage, viral load suppression and HIV incidence in Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
A comparison of self-report and antiretroviral detection to inform estimates of antiretroviral therapy coverage, viral load suppression and HIV incidence in Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2740-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helena Huerga, Fisseha Shiferie, Eduard Grebe, Ruggero Giuliani, Jihane Ben Farhat, Gilles Van-Cutsem, Karen Cohen

Abstract

Accurately identifying individuals who are on antiretroviral therapy (ART) is important to determine ART coverage and proportion on ART who are virally suppressed. ART is also included in recent infection testing algorithms used to estimate incidence. We compared estimates of ART coverage, viral load suppression rates and HIV incidence using ART self-report and detection of antiretroviral (ARV) drugs and we identified factors associated with discordance between the methods. Cross-sectional population-based survey in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Individuals 15-59 years were eligible. Interviews included questions about ARV use. Rapid HIV testing was performed at the participants' home. Blood specimens were collected for ARV detection, LAg-Avidity HIV incidence testing and viral load quantification in HIV-positive individuals. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify socio-demographic covariates associated with discordance between self-reported ART and ARV detection. Of the 5649 individuals surveyed, 1423 were HIV-positive. Median age was 34 years and 76.3% were women. ART coverage was estimated at 51.4% (95%CI:48.5-54.3), 53.1% (95%CI:50.2-55.9) and 56.1% (95%CI:53.5-58.8) using self-reported ART, ARV detection and both methods combined (classified as ART exposed if ARV detected and/or ART reported) respectively. ART coverage estimates using the 3 methods were fairly similar within sex and age categories except in individuals aged 15-19 years: 33.3% (95%CI:23.3-45.2), 33.8% (95%CI:23.9-45.4%) and 44.3% (95%CI:39.3-46.7) using self-reported ART, ARV detection and both methods combined. Viral suppression below 1000cp/mL in individuals on ART was estimated at 89.8% (95%CI:87.3-91.9), 93.1% (95%CI:91.0-94.8) and 88.7% (95%CI:86.2-90.7) using self-reported ART, ARV detection and both methods combined respectively. HIV incidence was estimated at 1.4 (95%CI:0.8-2.0) new cases/100 person-years when employing no measure of ARV use, 1.1/100PY (95%CI:0.6-1.7) using self-reported ART, and 1.2/100PY (95%CI:0.7-1.7) using ARV detection. In multivariate analyses, individuals aged 15-19 years had a higher risk of discordance on measures of ARV exposure (aOR:9.4; 95%CI:3.9-22.8), while migrants had a lower risk (aOR:0.3; 95%CI:0.1-0.6). In KwaZulu-Natal, the method of identifying ARV use had little impact on estimates of ART coverage, viral suppression rate and HIV incidence. However, discordant results were more common in younger individuals. This may skew estimates of ART coverage and viral suppression, particularly in adolescent surveys.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 24%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Other 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 20 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 16%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 21 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 19 December 2022.
All research outputs
#7,209,728
of 22,788,370 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2,379
of 7,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,882
of 320,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#53
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,788,370 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
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 320,299 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.