↓ Skip to main content

Quality of life in patients treated with first-line antiretroviral therapy containing nevirapine or efavirenz in Uganda: a prospective non-randomized study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Quality of life in patients treated with first-line antiretroviral therapy containing nevirapine or efavirenz in Uganda: a prospective non-randomized study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0959-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Doris Mutabazi Mwesigire, Albert W. Wu, Faith Martin, Achilles Katamba, Janet Seeley

Abstract

The goal of antiretroviral therapy (ART) is to suppress viral replication, reduce morbidity and mortality, and improve quality of life (QoL). For resource-limited settings, the World Health Organization recommends a first-line regimen of two-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors and one non-nucleoside transcriptase inhibitor (nevirapine (NVP) or efavirenz (EFV)). There are few data comparing the QoL impact of NVP versus EFV. This study assessed the change in QoL and factors associated with QoL among HIV patients receiving ART regimens based on EFV or NVP. We enrolled 640 people with HIV eligible for ART who received regimens including either NVP or EFV. QoL was assessed at baseline, three months and six months using Physical Health Summary (PHS) and Mental Health Summary (MHS) scores and the Global Person Generated Index (GPGI). Data were analyzed using generalized estimating equations, with ART regimen as the primary exposure, to identify associations between patient and disease factors and QoL. QoL increased on ART. The mean QoL scores did not differ significantly for regimens based on NVP versus EFV during follow-up for MHS and GPGI regardless of CD4 stratum and for PHS among patients with a CD4 count >250 cells/μL. The PHS-adjusted β coefficients for ART regimens based on EFV versus NVP by CD4 count strata were as follows: -1.61 (95 % CI -2.74, -0.49) for CD4 count <100 cells/μL; 0.82 (0.22, 1.43) for CD4 count 101-250 cells/μL; and -1.33 (-5.66, 3.00) for CD4 count >250 cells/μL. The corresponding MHS-adjusted β coefficients were as follows: -0.39 (-1.40, 0.62) for CD4 < 100 cells/μL; 0.16 (-0.66, 0.98) for CD4 count 101-250 cells/μL; and -0.75 (-2.01, 0.51) for CD4 count >250 cells/μL. The GPGI-adjusted odds ratios for EFV versus NVP were 0.51 (0.25, 1.04) for CD4 count <100 cells/μL, 0.98 (0.60, 1.58) for CD4 count 101-250 cells/μL, 1.39 (0.66, 2.90) for CD4 > 250 cells/μL. QoL improved among patients on EFV over the 6-month follow-up period (MHS p < 0.001; PHS p = 0.04, p = 0.028). Overall, patients with depression (PHS p < 0.001; GPGI p < 0.001) had lower scores and women had lower MHS (on NVP, p = 0.001). Other factors associated with lower QoL included alcohol use, low education level and advanced HIV disease. ART improves QoL. The results support use of either NVP or EFV. Patients initiating ART should be assessed for depression and managed appropriately. Women may require extra support to improve their QoL.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 75 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 14%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 6 8%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 15 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Psychology 5 7%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 7%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 18 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 August 2015.
All research outputs
#6,830,192
of 11,428,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,390
of 3,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,300
of 235,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#82
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,428,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,640 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 235,261 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.