Abstract

IntroductionIn 2014, the South African government adopted a differentiated service delivery (DSD) model in its “National Adherence Guidelines for Chronic Diseases (HIV, TB and NCDs)” (AGL) to strengthen the HIV care cascade. We describe the barriers and facilitators of the AGL implementation as experienced by various stakeholders in eight intervention and control sites across four districts.MethodsEmbedded within a cluster‐randomized evaluation of the AGL, we conducted 48 in‐depth interviews (IDIs) with healthcare providers, 16 IDIs with Department of Health and implementing partners and 24 focus group discussions (FGDs) with three HIV patient groups: new, stable and those not stable on treatment or not adhering to care. IDIs were conducted from August 2016 to August 2017; FGDs were conducted in January to February 2017. Content analysis was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Findings were triangulated among respondent types to elicit barriers and facilitators to implementation.ResultsNew HIV patients found counselling helpful but intervention respondents reported sub‐optimal counselling and privacy concerns as barriers to initiation. Providers felt insufficiently trained for this intervention and were confused by the simultaneous rollout of the Universal Test and Treat strategy. For stable patients, repeat prescription collection strategies (RPCS) were generally well received. Patients and providers concurred that RPCS reduced congestion and waiting times at clinics. There was confusion though, among providers and implementers, around implementation of RPCS interventions. For patients not stable on treatment, enhanced counselling and tracing patients lost‐to‐follow‐up were perceived as beneficial to adherence behaviours but faced logistical challenges. All providers faced difficulties accessing data and identifying patients in need of tracing. Congestion at clinics and staff attitude were perceived as barriers preventing patients returning to care.ConclusionsImplementation of DSD models at scale is complex but this evaluation identified several positive aspects of AGL implementation. The positive perception of RPCS interventions and challenges managing patients not stable on treatment aligned with results from the larger evaluation. While some implementation challenges may resolve with experience, ensuring providers and implementers have the necessary training, tools and resources to operationalize AGL effectively is critical to the overall success of South Africa’s HIV control strategy.

Highlights

  • In 2014, the South African government adopted a differentiated service delivery (DSD) model in its “National Adherence Guidelines for Chronic Diseases (HIV, TB and NCDs)” (AGL) to strengthen the HIV care cascade

  • Data indicate that retention in care and adherence to antiretroviral treatment (ART) in South Africa is poor [2,3,4], with just over 70% of patients starting ART retained in care 12 months later [5]

  • In 2015, the South African National Department of Health (NDOH) began implementing the “National Adherence Guidelines for Chronic Diseases (HIV, TB and NCDs)” (AGL) which outline the provision of a minimum package of eight interventions aimed at improving health outcomes along the cascade of care, including linkage to and retention in care and adherence to treatment [13]

Read more

Summary

| INTRODUCTION

South Africa has the largest HIV treatment programme in the world, with 4.7 million public sector patients on treatment and a target of 6.1 million patients by end December 2020 [1]. To achieve UNAIDS 90-90-90 global HIV targets, countries across sub-Saharan Africa are developing and scaling up differentiated service delivery (DSD) models for providing antiretroviral treatment (ART) [9,10,11,12] These targeted, patientcentred service delivery approaches allow services to be adapted to different patient groups to enable better access to, and outcomes of treatment services, and to increase clinic capacity. Interventions targeting newly initiated patients or patients not stable on treatment, showed little or no improvement in outcomes compared to the standard of care [14,15] These findings indicate a need for gaining a better understanding of the AGL implementation through qualitative research. This paper does not present outcomes, rather qualitatively describes the strengths and challenges of the AGL implementation as experienced by health providers, patients and implementing partners in four intervention and four control sites

| METHODS
| Ethical considerations
| RESULTS
| DISCUSSION
Perspectives on interventions for new patients
Perspectives on interventions for patients stable on treatment
Findings
Perspectives on interventions for patients not stable on treatment
| CONCLUSIONS
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.