You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 10, Issue 9
  • Overview of systematic reviews on strategies to improve treatment initiation, adherence to antiretroviral therapy and retention in care for people living with HIV: part 1

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
HIV/AIDS
Original research
Overview of systematic reviews on strategies to improve treatment initiation, adherence to antiretroviral therapy and retention in care for people living with HIV: part 1
  1. Lawrence Mbuagbaw1,2,3,
  2. Anisa Hajizadeh1,
  3. Annie Wang1,
  4. Dominik Mertz1,4,
  5. Daeria O Lawson1,5,
  6. Marek Smieja1,4,
  7. Anita C Benoit6,7,
  8. Elizabeth Alvarez1,8,
  9. Lisa Puchalski Ritchie9,10,11,
  10. Beth Rachlis12,
  11. Carmen Logie6,13,
  12. Winston Husbands14,
  13. Shari Margolese15,
  14. Babalwa Zani16,
  15. Lehana Thabane1,2,17,18,19
  1. 1Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  2. 2Biostatistics Unit, Father Sean O'Sullivan Research Centre, St Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  3. 3Centre for the Develoment of Best Practices in Health, Yaounde Central Hospital, Yaounde, Cameroon
  4. 4Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  5. 5Division of Rheumatology, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  6. 6Women's College Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  7. 7Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  8. 8Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  9. 9Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  10. 10Department of Emergency Medicine, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  11. 11Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  12. 12Division of Clinical Public Health, Dalla Lana School of Toronto, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  13. 13Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  14. 14Ontario HIV Treatment Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  15. 15Canadian HIV Trials Network Community Advisory Committee, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  16. 16Knowledge Translation Unit, University of Cape Town Lung Institute, Rondebosch, Western Cape, South Africa
  17. 17Pediatrics and Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  18. 18Centre for Evaluation of Medicine, St Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  19. 19Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Lawrence Mbuagbaw; mbuagblc{at}mcmaster.ca

Abstract

Objectives We sought to map the evidence and identify interventions that increase initiation of antiretroviral therapy, adherence to antiretroviral therapy and retention in care for people living with HIV at high risk for poor engagement in care.

Methods We conducted an overview of systematic reviews and sought for evidence on vulnerable populations (men who have sex with men (MSM), African, Caribbean and Black (ACB) people, sex workers (SWs), people who inject drugs (PWID) and indigenous people). We searched PubMed, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library in November 2018. We screened, extracted data and assessed methodological quality in duplicate and present a narrative synthesis.

Results We identified 2420 records of which only 98 systematic reviews were eligible. Overall, 65/98 (66.3%) were at low risk of bias. Systematic reviews focused on ACB (66/98; 67.3%), MSM (32/98; 32.7%), PWID (6/98; 6.1%), SWs and prisoners (both 4/98; 4.1%). Interventions were: mixed (37/98; 37.8%), digital (22/98; 22.4%), behavioural or educational (9/98; 9.2%), peer or community based (8/98; 8.2%), health system (7/98; 7.1%), medication modification (6/98; 6.1%), economic (4/98; 4.1%), pharmacy based (3/98; 3.1%) or task-shifting (2/98; 2.0%). Most of the reviews concluded that the interventions effective (69/98; 70.4%), 17.3% (17/98) were neutral or were indeterminate 12.2% (12/98). Knowledge gaps were the types of participants included in primary studies (vulnerable populations not included), poor research quality of primary studies and poorly tailored interventions (not designed for vulnerable populations). Digital, mixed and peer/community-based interventions were reported to be effective across the continuum of care.

Conclusions Interventions along the care cascade are mostly focused on adherence and do not sufficiently address all vulnerable populations.

  • HIV & AIDS
  • therapeutics
  • health policy
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034793

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Strengths and limitations of this study

    • To the best of our knowledge, this is the first overview to address the whole cascade of care for people living with HIV.

    • Our categorisation of systematic reviews by intervention type and the intervention’s success will permit decision makers to easily identify the interventions that are likely to work for their specific context.

    • We categorised systematic reviews to facilitate data synthesis, however we acknowledge that certain interventions may fit into multiple categories.

    • Among mixed interventions, it was challenging to determine the role of the individual intervention types on the overall effect.

    • This report at the systematic review level does not cover all aspects of the interventions, which can only be retrieved from individual trials.

    Background

    Despite advances in diagnosis and management of HIV infection, many people living with HIV still do not have optimal outcomes. In 2014, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) set the 90-90-90 target for 2020.1 If this target is met, 90% of people living with HIV will know their HIV status; 90% of all people diagnosed with HIV will be receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) and 90% of all people on ART will be virally suppressed.1 These targets are contingent on engagement in the cascade of care that includes access to testing, timely diagnosis, access to and initiation of treatment, adherence to treatment and retention in care. Despite national efforts, very few countries have actually met these targets.2 The UK has met these targets3 and Botswana and Australia are on track.4 Canada is also on track to meet these targets, with 87% of people with HIV diagnosed, 82% on treatment and 93% virally suppressed.5 For countries to meet these targets, there must be policies in place to support programmes that deliver interventions across the entire cascade of care. As such, there must be awareness, reductions in stigma and incentives that promote testing alongside strategies to enhance treatment initiation, adherence and retention in care.6 Consistent access to ART and high-quality data should be collected so that advances towards the targets can be measured appropriately.6

    If all these conditions are met and countries meet these targets, there are still concerns that the targets may be met at a national level but not in certain subpopulations.7 8 The literature suggests that vulnerable populations such as men who have sex with men (MSM), sex workers (SWs), people who inject drugs (PWID), people with precarious migration status and ethno-racial minorities have a higher disease burden, worse engagement in care and are less likely to achieve viral suppression.9–14 MSM and SWs all over the world are 19 and 13.5 times more likely to be living with HIV.7 8 In Canada, inequities in social and structural determinants such as injection drug use, ethno-racial background, age, housing, sex work and gender affect engagement in care.11–15

    The literature is rife with interventions aimed at improving different aspects of the care cascade. However, the challenges countries face in achieving the UNAIDS targets suggest that the interventions may not be effective, may not be properly translated into practice or may not be tailored (designed to have optimal impact on groups with different sociodemographic or risk characteristics that could influence the effect of the intervention) to the relevant populations. Therefore, due consideration of the settings in which interventions are tested, their target populations, complexity and applicability in the real world are important considerations for scale up.16 17 These limitations in the quality and quantity of evidence were identified in the International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care guideline document.18

    While HIV is still a leading cause of disease burden in sub-Saharan Africa,19 vulnerable populations in high-income countries may experience a comparable disease burden if they are not recognised as a priority.20 As countries strive to meet the 90-90-90 target, it is becoming apparent that due to the disparities in outcomes across jurisdictions and populations, better targeted approaches are required to improve engagement in care.21 Ontario is the most populous province of Canada and home to 42% of Canada’s 71 000 people living with HIV. Due to individual, social and structural factors, it is estimated that approximately 20% of these people living with HIV in Canada have discontinuous care.11 In Ontario, 80%–87% of people living with HIV are in care, 70%–82% are on ART and 67%–81% are virally suppressed.22 This overview of systematic reviews will inform policy, practice and research in Ontario and other high-income settings especially with regards to engagement in HIV care for vulnerable populations. We sought to map the available evidence on strategies that improve engagement in the HIV care cascade (initiation of treatment, adherence to medication and retention in care) for priority populations as well as to identify knowledge gaps (see figure 1).

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Outline of the HIV care cascade.

    This overview is the first part of our report and includes a high-level summary of the findings from systematic reviews, with no distinction by country. We provide a map of the evidence here, and the second part will summarise the findings from the randomised trials included in the systematic reviews.

    Methods

    We conducted an overview of systematic reviews using standard Cochrane methods.23 The protocol for this overview has been published elsewhere.24 Key features of our methods are outlined below.

    Patient and public involvement

    Our research question was formulated and refined based on input from the Ontario HIV Treatment Network (OHTN), a non-profit network, as part of their strategy to close gaps in the cascade of care for key populations. The investigators include patients, clinicians, researchers and representatives of AIDS Service Organisations/Community-Based Organisations. Decision makers and representatives from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care of Ontario were also consulted.

    Criteria for considering reviews for inclusion

    We included any systematic reviews with at least one study with a randomised comparison of an intervention designed to improve initiation of ART, adherence to ART and/or retention in care among people living with HIV. We excluded abstracts, non-systematic reviews and other overviews. All comparators (eg, attention control, usual care, another intervention) were eligible for inclusion. We had no restriction on the location of the studies or the ages of the participants.

    Search methods for identification of reviews

    We conducted an exhaustive and comprehensive search of the following databases: PubMed, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library; from 1995 (when combination ART was introduced) to 13 November 2018. The search strategy was reviewed by a librarian at Health Sciences Centre Library at McMaster University. The full search strategy is reported as a supplemental file (online supplemental appendix 1).

    We also searched the websites of the WHO, UNAIDS, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the systematic review database housed at the OHTN: Synthesised HIV/AIDS Research Evidence (http://www.hivevidence.ca/frmSearch.aspx).

    Finally, we looked for additional systematic reviews in the bibliographies of the included reviews.

    Screening

    The results of our search were collated in EndNote reference manager.25 Duplicates were removed and all the references were uploaded unto DistillerSR (Evidence Partners, Ottawa, Canada). We screened the retrieved citations in duplicate with reviewer pairs (BZ, AW, AH) first by examining the titles and abstracts and second by examining the full texts. Systematic reviews that met our inclusion criteria were processed and data were extracted.

    Data items

    From the systematic reviews, we extracted standard bibliometric data (author, year), number of included primary studies and their designs, target populations, types of interventions, outcomes of interest, key findings and knowledge gaps. Data were extracted in duplicate by reviewers working in pairs (BZ, AW, AH).

    Assessment of methodological quality of included reviews

    We appraised the methodological quality of the included reviews using the risk of bias in systematic reviews tool.26 This tool allows reviewers to assess the relevance of the question, identify concerns with the review process and make a judgement on risk of bias (high, low, unclear). Risk of bias was appraised in duplicate by pairs of reviewers (BZ, AW, AH).

    Discrepancies and disagreements in screening, data extraction and risk of bias were resolved by consensus or by adjudication by a third reviewer (LM).

    Data synthesis

    The extracted data were described narratively. Systematic reviews were organised according to the portion of the care cascade they addressed (ie, initiation, adherence, retention) and the intervention types: behavioural or educational, digital, mixed, economic, health system, medication modification, peer or community based, pharmacy based or task-shifting. These categories were developed post-hoc to facilitate data synthesis. The types of interventions included in each category are outlined in table 1.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Categorisation of intervention types in the systematic reviews

    Conclusion statements were categorised according to a previously used framework: positive (evidence of effectiveness); neutral (no evidence of effectiveness or no opinion); negative (authors advise against the use of intervention); indeterminate (insufficient evidence or more research is required).27 Knowledge gaps were operationalised according to guidance on how to report research recommendations by identifying the state of the evidence, participants, interventions, comparisons and outcomes for which further research is needed.28 We also discuss our findings within the scope of the Health Systems Arrangement Framework.29 In this framework, interventions may be organised to inform different parts of the decision-making process, and interventions can be related to governance, financial or delivery arrangements.29 Intervention effects are summarised according to the vulnerable population they were tested with, intervention target (initiation, adherence, retention) and risk of bias. Interventions reported in systematic with positive recommendations are highlighted. Our findings are reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.30

    Results

    Literature search

    Our search identified 2420 records from electronic databases and 76 from other sources. After removal of duplicates, 1505 titles and abstracts were screened, of which 1006 were considered ineligible and excluded. We further screened 499 full-text articles and included 98. Agreement on the screening of full-text articles was high (Kappa=0.79). The screening process is outlined in a PRISMA flow diagram (figure 2).30 A full list of excluded systematic reviews is provided as a supplemental file (online supplemental appendix 2).

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Systematic review flow diagram. PLHIV, people living with HIV; RCTs, randomised controlled trials.

    Description of included reviews

    The 98 included systematic reviews were published between 2006 and 201831–128 and reported on interventions to improve initiation of care (n=18),32 41 54 58 61 64 65 70 75 78 81 84 92 100 109 113 123 126 adherence to ART (n=82)31–36 38 39 41–53 55 57 59 60 62 65–68 71–77 79–108 110–112 114–116 118–122 124 125 127 128 and retention in care (n=39).32 37 40 41 52 56 58–60 63–66 68–70 75–78 81 84 86 88 89 91–93 95 96 100 101 105 113 115–117 126 128 Thirty-one (31) reviews reported two or more aspects of the cascade.32 41 52 58–60 64–66 70 75–78 81 84 86 88 89 91 92 95 96 100 101 105 113 115 116 126 128 They included a median (quartile 1; quartile 3 (Q1; Q3)) of 19 (11; 28) primary studies and 8 (4; 13) randomised trials.

    With regards to vulnerable populations, 32.7% (32/98) included primary studies involving MSM,31 33 40–42 45 47 48 51 52 59 65 70 73 80 81 85 87 89 92 96 98–100 104–106 108 110 113 114 119 67.3% (66/96) involving African, Caribbean or Black (ACB) people,31–34 36 37 40 43 45 47 48 50 52–54 56 58–61 63–66 70 71 73–82 84–87 89 90 92 93 95 101–104 106 108–110 112–120 123 125 126 128 25.5% (25/98) focused on PWID,39 41 43 44 48 50–52 60 66 68 70 73 74 85 88 91 92 96 99 100 105 108 116 121 6.1% (6/98) involving SW,41 42 48 52 96 100 4.1% (4/98) included data on immigrants42 82 108 126 and 4.1% (4/98) included data on incarcerated persons.40 60 91 105 These characteristics are summarised in table 2. A full list of the 98 included systematic reviews is reported as a supplemental file (online supplemental appendix 3).

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Summary characteristics of included systematic reviews: n=98

    Methodological quality of included reviews

    Most of the systematic reviews were judged to be a low risk of bias (65 (66.3%)). Twenty (20.4%) were judged to be at high risk of bias and 13 (13.3%) were judged to be at unclear risk of bias. The most frequent concern was related to data collection and primary study appraisal (28.6% at high risk of bias in this domain). The main concerns we identified were no risk of bias assessments conducted, missing primary study information and no evidence that data had been processed in duplicate. This was followed by the risk of bias in the identification and selection of primary studies (19.4% at high risk of bias in this domain). The main limitations we identified were not searching grey literature, searching less than two databases, exclusion of non-English primary studies, no evidence that data were processed in duplicate and not reporting the search strategy. For the domain of study eligibility criteria (15.3% at high risk of bias in this domain) the main concerns were: eligibility criteria not described in sufficient detail, ambiguous criteria and restrictions based on publication status and language. For the domain of synthesis and findings (15.3% at high risk of bias in this domain) the main concerns were: heterogeneity was not assessed, choice of synthesis approach not justified and primary study biases not addressed (see figure 3 and online supplemental appendix 3).

    Figure 3
    Figure 3

    Risk of bias summary.

    Effects of interventions

    Most systematic reviews gave positive recommendations for the interventions they examined (69/70.4%). Seventeen (17.3%) were neutral and 12 (12.2%) were indeterminate. No systematic reviews recommended against any interventions. Positive findings from systematic reviews are outlined below. All our findings, positive, negative, neutral and indeterminate are summarised in a supplemental file (online supplemental appendix 3).

    Initiation

    Of the 18 systematic reviews that examined initiation of ART as an outcome, 11 (61.1%) at low risk of bias reported that digital,41 100 mixed,32 54 75 84 health system66 78 123 and peer-based or community-based interventions65 113 improved initiation of ART. Two systematic reviews at high or unclear risk of bias reported that digital64 and mixed interventions improved initiation of ART.70

    Adherence

    Of the 82 systematic reviews that examined adherence to ART as an outcome, 25 (30.5%) at low risk of bias reported that behavioural/educational,44 45 digital,31 33 41 46 52 79 98 100 101 111 122 mixed,32 36 43 53 57 62 72 74 75 82 84 91 103 105 108 112 health system,50 medication modification,49 59 102 peer/community-based,73 96 128 pharmacy-based86 111 and task-shifting interventions77 improved adherence to ART. Eighteen (18/21.9%) systematic reviews at high or unclear risk of bias reported that behavioural/educational,39 104 digital,42 71 85 90 mixed,50 80 89 99 114 127 economic,55 68 116 medication modification,97 peer-based or community-based125 and task-shifting118 interventions improved adherence to ART.

    Retention

    Of the 39 systematic reviews that examined retention in care as an outcome, 21 (53.8%) systematic reviews at low risk of bias reported that digital,41 52 100 mixed,32 66 69 75 84 91 105 economic,115 health system,66 78 95 medication modification,59 peer/community-based65 96 113 128 and task-shifting77 interventions improved adherence to HIV care. Seven (7/17.9%) of systematic reviews at high or unclear risk of bias reported that behavioural/educational,37 digital,64 mixed,70 89 economics,116 health system40 and peer-based or community-based interventions56 improved retention in care.

    Figure 4 is a display of the available evidence, showing intervention type by HIV care cascade target (panel a), intervention type by authors’ conclusions (panel b) and key population by HIV care cascade target (panel c).

    Figure 4
    Figure 4

    Evidence maps of HIV care cascade interventions.

    Knowledge gaps

    The most frequent knowledge gap identified in 22 (22.4%) systematic reviews was with regards to the population studied, where further investigation with vulnerable and marginalised groups such as children, youth, MSM, pregnant and breastfeeding women, individuals in low-income settings, individuals with concurrent mental health issues and older adults is required. The authors also raised concerns about the primary study designs (n=22/22.4%) and primarily called for more robust, innovative, rigorous and high-quality designs, including experimental designs, (pragmatic) randomised trials, longer follow-up times, mixed methods approaches and primary studies with larger sample sizes. The nature of the intervention was also identified as a knowledge gap (22/22.4%). The authors found that interventions were not sufficiently tailored to high-risk populations, low-income settings, were too costly or did not cover the entire cascade of care. They further suggested that novel interventions be investigated and older intervention be combined to assess synergistic effects. Only two (2.0%) systematic reviews raised concerns about the nature of the outcomes used.72 83 They called for universal definitions for adherence and the use of more humanistic, economic and patient-important outcomes.

    Discussion

    We conducted an exhaustive and comprehensive search for systematic reviews focused on examining interventions that enhance ART initiation, ART adherence and retention among people living with HIV. We included 98 systematic reviews. Most of the systematic reviews we identified focused on adherence-enhancing interventions and investigated a mixed range of intervention categories. For the most part, the authors of the included systematic reviews found that the interventions were effective (70.4%). Digital, mixed and peer/community-based interventions were the only three categories of interventions that were reported to be effective across the whole continuum of care. The main knowledge gaps identified in most systematic reviews was a lack of focus on the populations that would benefit the most (22.4%), poor quality of the primary studies (22.4%) and nature of the interventions (22.4%).

    We further examined to what extent health systems arrangements were met by this body of evidence. Most systematic reviews focused on the delivery of interventions (task-shifting, homebased care, pharmacy-based interventions) but none addressed governance of HIV care and very few addressed financial components (food assistance, cash incentives, performance-based financing, household economic strengthening) that may support or hinder access to HIV care and treatment.55 68 115 116 This may be an important limitation in how research is designed, without adequate consideration of the facets of a health system that could influence outcomes.

    Most of the systematic reviews were at low risk of bias (66.3%).26 However, there were some concerns, notably with issues related to reporting of details in review conduct which indicated high or unclear risk of bias. We recognise that journal word count limitations may prevent authors from reporting all the relevant details, but appendices could be used to provide additional details. Risk of bias from these systematic reviews should be interpreted in context and may differ from the risk of bias in the primary studies included.

    To the best of our knowledge, there is no other overview of systematic reviews investigating the cascade of HIV care, but our findings confirm previous research indicating a paucity of research on vulnerable populations129 and challenges with scaling-up interventions.130

    The disproportionate study of adherence might be due to its perceived importance as a cornerstone of care or the relative ease of designing adherence studies. Prior to recent recommendations to treat all diagnosed people, initiation of treatment was seldom a priority.131 Likewise, retention in care is an outcome that requires substantially longer follow-up to generate meaningful results.11 132 In order for countries to meet the 90-90-90 target, the cascade of care must be viewed as continuum, not just for practice, but also for research, such that interventions that strengthen the entire cascade be scaled up.

    Even though only disparate definitions of adherence to ART were identified by the authors of some systematic reviews, we believe such diversity may exist with retention in care, as other studies have noted that there is no gold standard for what constitutes adequate retention.133 Future work on the trials included in the systematic reviews will permit us to describe the breadth of definitions used for both adherence and retention. Standardised definitions are important for jurisdictions to be able to measure changes over time and make cross jurisdictional comparisons. Standardised definitions will also help systematic reviewers to synthesise research.

    Strengths and limitations

    We acknowledge the following limitations. Despite our attempt to group the interventions into categories, we recognise that certain interventions may fit into more than one category. For example, tasking-shifting and pharmacy-based interventions can be viewed as health system or community-based interventions. Second, for the group of systematic reviews that investigated mixed interventions, it is challenging to determine the role of the individual intervention types on the overall effect. This group could contain interventions from any category and therefore it is not surprising that the systematic reviews that included mixed interventions often found a significant effect. Within each systematic review, the diversity of study designs, populations and primary studies from various income levels precluded in-depth investigation of how these issues may have affected intervention effectiveness at the systematic review level. No distinction was made between ACB populations in their respective countries versus ACB populations in high-income countries where the vulnerability is different. Further ongoing work on the trials included in these systematic reviews will highlight the features of interventions in ACB populations. Some primary studies are included in more than one systematic review. This highlights the need for a primary study-level analysis. Also, we reiterate that the statements on effectiveness are drawn from the concluding statements from the included systematic reviews and should therefore be interpreted with caution. Finally, despite our efforts to conduct a comprehensive and exhaustive search, it is possible that some systematic reviews were missed if they were indexed with terms we did not include in our strategy.

    This work has many strengths. In addition to using a predefined protocol, we conducted a comprehensive search, assessed risk of bias, investigated the availability of data on vulnerable populations and categorised the systematic reviews by type of intervention and success of the intervention. This approach would permit decision makers and other end users to identify intervention type that are likely to work for specific populations at each point of the care cascade. However, a trial-level analyses is required to enrich these findings.

    Conclusion

    We found limited research on vulnerable populations and uneven focus on the three aspects of the care cascade. In order to identify the most effective and pragmatic interventions for vulnerable populations in high-income settings, a study-level analysis is required. The diversity of the interventions examined and the populations studied indicate the need for network meta-analyses in this field, some of which have already been published.90 The lack of systematic reviews that generate evidence on governance is indicative of how removed many research endeavours are from policy-making. Monitoring and evaluation also need to be considered within systems to support up-to-date collection of data on detection, initiation, adherence and retention in care.

    Differences between protocol and review

    There are a few differences between this report and the protocol. First, after additional consultation with stakeholders, we included interventions targeting initiation of ART. Given the amount of data, we decided to report our findings on two levels, the systematic review level and the primary study level. Only the systematic review level is reported here, and therefore in-depth analyses of the settings (high vs low income) of the primary studies and the levels of pragmatism, and certainty of the evidence are reserved for a second paper.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. UNAIDS
      . 90-90-90: an ambitious treatment target to help end the AIDS epidemic. secondary 90-90-90: an ambitious treatment target to help end the AIDS epidemic, 2014. Available: https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/90-90-90_en.pdf
    2. ↵
      1. Levi J,
      2. Raymond A,
      3. Pozniak A, et al
      . Can the UNAIDS 90-90-90 target be achieved? A systematic analysis of national HIV treatment cascades. BMJ Glob Health 2016;1:e000010.doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2015-000010pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28588933
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    3. ↵
      1. Kirby T
      . The UK reaches UNAIDS 90-90-90 targets. Lancet 2018;392:2427. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)33117-9pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30527406
      OpenUrlPubMed
    4. ↵
      1. Marukutira T,
      2. Stoové M,
      3. Lockman S, et al
      . A tale of two countries: progress towards UNAIDS 90-90-90 targets in Botswana and Australia. J Int AIDS Soc 2018;21:e25090. doi:10.1002/jia2.25090pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29508945
      OpenUrlPubMed
    5. ↵
      1. Canada Go
      . Summary: measuring Canada's progress on the 90-90-90 HIV targets. secondary summary: measuring Canada's progress on the 90-90-90 HIV targets, 2017. Available: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/diseases-conditions/summary-measuring-canada-progress-90-90-90-hiv-targets.html
    6. ↵
      1. Bain LE,
      2. Nkoke C,
      3. Noubiap JJN
      . UNAIDS 90-90-90 targets to end the AIDS epidemic by 2020 are not realistic: comment on "Can the UNAIDS 90-90-90 target be achieved? A systematic analysis of national HIV treatment cascades". BMJ Glob Health 2017;2:e000227–27.doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000227pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28589026
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    7. ↵
      1. Baral S,
      2. Sifakis F,
      3. Cleghorn F, et al
      . Elevated risk for HIV infection among men who have sex with men in low- and middle-income countries 2000-2006: a systematic review. PLoS Med 2007;4:e339. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040339pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18052602
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    8. ↵
      1. Baral S,
      2. Beyrer C,
      3. Muessig K, et al
      . Burden of HIV among female sex workers in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2012;12:538–49.doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70066-Xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22424777
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    9. ↵
      1. Cescon AM,
      2. Cooper C,
      3. Chan K, et al
      . Factors associated with virological suppression among HIV-positive individuals on highly active antiretroviral therapy in a multi-site Canadian cohort. HIV Med 2011;12:352–60.doi:10.1111/j.1468-1293.2010.00890.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21059167
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. ↵
      1. CATIE
      . The epidemiology of HIV in Canada. secondary the epidemiology of HIV in Canada, 2017. Available: http://www.catie.ca/en/fact-sheets/epidemiology/epidemiology-hiv-canada
    11. ↵
      1. Rachlis B,
      2. Burchell AN,
      3. Gardner S, et al
      . Social determinants of health and retention in HIV care in a clinical cohort in Ontario, Canada. AIDS Care 2017;29:828–37.doi:10.1080/09540121.2016.1271389
      OpenUrl
    12. ↵
      1. Joseph B,
      2. Kerr T,
      3. Puskas CM, et al
      . Factors linked to transitions in adherence to antiretroviral therapy among HIV-infected illicit drug users in a Canadian setting. AIDS Care 2015;27:1128–36.doi:10.1080/09540121.2015.1032205pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25915438
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    13. ↵
      1. Kerr T,
      2. Palepu A,
      3. Barness G, et al
      . Psychosocial determinants of adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy among injection drug users in Vancouver. Antivir Ther 2004;9:407–14.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15259903
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    14. ↵
      1. Lourenço L,
      2. Nohpal A,
      3. Shopin D, et al
      . Non-Hiv-Related health care utilization, demographic, clinical and laboratory factors associated with time to initial retention in HIV care among HIV-positive individuals linked to HIV care. HIV Med 2016;17:269–79.doi:10.1111/hiv.12297pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26216126
      OpenUrlPubMed
    15. ↵
      1. Tapp C,
      2. Milloy M-J,
      3. Kerr T, et al
      . Female gender predicts lower access and adherence to antiretroviral therapy in a setting of free healthcare. BMC Infect Dis 2011;11:86–7.doi:10.1186/1471-2334-11-86pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21466704
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    16. ↵
      1. Barker PM,
      2. Reid A,
      3. Schall MW
      . A framework for scaling up health interventions: lessons from large-scale improvement initiatives in Africa. Implementation Sci 2015;11.doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0374-x
    17. ↵
      1. Willis CD,
      2. Riley BL,
      3. Stockton L, et al
      . Scaling up complex interventions: insights from a realist synthesis. Health Res Policy Syst 2016;14:88.doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0158-4pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27993138
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Thompson MA,
      2. Mugavero MJ,
      3. Amico KR, et al
      . Guidelines for improving entry into and retention in care and antiretroviral adherence for persons with HIV: evidence-based recommendations from an international association of physicians in AIDS care panel. Ann Intern Med 2012;156:817–33.doi:10.7326/0003-4819-156-11-201206050-00419pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22393036
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    19. ↵
      1. Dwyer-Lindgren L,
      2. Cork MA,
      3. Sligar A, et al
      . Mapping HIV prevalence in sub-Saharan Africa between 2000 and 2017. Nature 2019;570:189–93.doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1200-9pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31092927
      OpenUrlPubMed
    20. ↵
      Rights of vulnerable people and the future of HIV/AIDS. Lancet Infect Dis 2010;10:67. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(10)70013-Xpmid:20113971
      OpenUrlPubMed
    21. ↵
      1. Porter K,
      2. Gourlay A,
      3. Attawell K, et al
      . Substantial heterogeneity in progress toward reaching the 90-90-90 HIV target in the who European region. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2018;79:28–37.doi:10.1097/QAI.0000000000001761pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29847474
      OpenUrlPubMed
    22. ↵
      1. OHESI
      . Hiv care cascade in Ontario: linkage to care, in care, on antiretroviral treatment, and virally suppressed, 2015. secondary HIV care cascade in Ontario: linkage to care, in care, on antiretroviral treatment, and virally suppressed, 2015, 2015. Available: http://www.ohesi.ca/documents/OHESI-cascade-report-17072017-a2.pdf
    23. ↵
      1. Becker LA,
      2. Oxman AD
      . Overviews of reviews. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Cochrane book series, 2008: 607–31.
    24. ↵
      1. Mbuagbaw L,
      2. Mertz D,
      3. Lawson DO, et al
      . Strategies to improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy and retention in care for people living with HIV in high-income countries: a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews. BMJ Open 2018;8:e022982. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022982pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30206089
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    25. ↵
      1. Reuters. T
      . Endnote X7. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Thomson Reuters, 2013.
    26. ↵
      1. Whiting P,
      2. Savović J,
      3. Higgins JPT, et al
      . ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;69:225–34.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26092286
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    27. ↵
      1. Tricco AC,
      2. Antony J,
      3. Vafaei A, et al
      . Seeking effective interventions to treat complex wounds: an overview of systematic reviews. BMC Med 2015;13:89. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0288-5pmid:25899006
      OpenUrlPubMed
    28. ↵
      1. Brown P,
      2. Brunnhuber K,
      3. Chalkidou K, et al
      . How to formulate research recommendations. BMJ 2006;333:804–6.doi:10.1136/bmj.38987.492014.94
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    29. ↵
      1. Lavis JN,
      2. Røttingen J-A,
      3. Bosch-Capblanch X, et al
      . Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: linking guidance development to policy development. PLoS Med 2012;9:e1001186. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001186pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22427746
      OpenUrlPubMed
    30. ↵
      1. Moher D,
      2. Altman DG,
      3. Liberati A, et al
      . PRISMA statement. Epidemiology 2011;22:128.doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181fe7825pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21150360
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    31. ↵
      1. Amankwaa I,
      2. Boateng D,
      3. Quansah DY, et al
      . Effectiveness of short message services and voice call interventions for antiretroviral therapy adherence and other outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2018;13:e0204091. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0204091pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30240417
      OpenUrlPubMed
    32. ↵
      1. Ambia J,
      2. Mandala J
      . A systematic review of interventions to improve prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission service delivery and promote retention. J Int AIDS Soc 2016;19:20309. doi:10.7448/IAS.19.1.20309pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27056361
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    33. ↵
      1. Anglada-Martinez H,
      2. Riu-Viladoms G,
      3. Martin-Conde M, et al
      . Does mHealth increase adherence to medication? results of a systematic review. Int J Clin Pract 2015;69:9–32.doi:10.1111/ijcp.12582pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25472682
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    34. ↵
      1. Arrivillaga M,
      2. Martucci V,
      3. Hoyos PA, et al
      . Adherence among children and young people living with HIV/AIDS: a systematic review of medication and comprehensive interventions. Vulnerable Child Youth Stud 2013;8:321–37.doi:10.1080/17450128.2013.764031
      OpenUrl
    35. ↵
      1. Bain-Brickley D,
      2. Butler LM,
      3. Kennedy GE, et al
      . Interventions to improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy in children with HIV infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;18.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009513
    36. ↵
      1. Bärnighausen T,
      2. Chaiyachati K,
      3. Chimbindi N, et al
      . Interventions to increase antiretroviral adherence in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review of evaluation studies. Lancet Infect Dis 2011;11:942–51.doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70181-5pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22030332
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    37. ↵
      1. Bateganya MH,
      2. Amanyeiwe U,
      3. Roxo U, et al
      . Impact of support groups for people living with HIV on clinical outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2015;68:74.
    38. ↵
      1. Bhatta DN,
      2. Liabsuetrakul T,
      3. McNeil EB
      . Social and behavioral interventions for improving quality of life of HIV infected people receiving antiretroviral therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2017;15:80. doi:10.1186/s12955-017-0662-4pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28438211
      OpenUrlPubMed
    39. ↵
      1. Binford MC,
      2. Kahana SY,
      3. Altice FL
      . A systematic review of antiretroviral adherence interventions for HIV-infected people who use drugs. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep 2012;9:287–312.doi:10.1007/s11904-012-0134-8pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22936463
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    40. ↵
      1. Brennan A,
      2. Browne JP,
      3. Horgan M
      . A systematic review of health service interventions to improve linkage with or retention in HIV care. AIDS Care 2014;26:804–12.doi:10.1080/09540121.2013.869536pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24354712
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    41. ↵
      1. Cao B,
      2. Gupta S,
      3. Wang J, et al
      . Social media interventions to promote HIV testing, linkage, adherence, and retention: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res 2017;19:e394. doi:10.2196/jmir.7997pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29175811
      OpenUrlPubMed
    42. ↵
      1. Catalani C,
      2. Philbrick W,
      3. Fraser H, et al
      . mHealth for HIV Treatment & Prevention: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Open AIDS J 2013;7:17–41.doi:10.2174/1874613620130812003pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24133558
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    43. ↵
      1. Chaiyachati KH,
      2. Ogbuoji O,
      3. Price M, et al
      . Interventions to improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy: a rapid systematic review. AIDS 2014;28 Suppl 2:S187-204–204.doi:10.1097/QAD.0000000000000252pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24849479
      OpenUrlPubMed
    44. ↵
      1. Chang SJ,
      2. Choi S,
      3. Kim S-A, et al
      . Intervention strategies based on Information-Motivation-Behavioral skills model for health behavior change: a systematic review. Asian Nurs Res 2014;8:172–81.doi:10.1016/j.anr.2014.08.002
      OpenUrl
    45. ↵
      1. Charania MR,
      2. Marshall KJ,
      3. Lyles CM, et al
      . Identification of evidence-based interventions for promoting HIV medication adherence: findings from a systematic review of U.S.-based studies, 1996-2011. AIDS Behav 2014;18:646–60.doi:10.1007/s10461-013-0594-xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24043269
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    46. ↵
      1. Checchi KD,
      2. Huybrechts KF,
      3. Avorn J, et al
      . Electronic medication packaging devices and medication adherence: a systematic review. JAMA 2014;312:1237–47.doi:10.1001/jama.2014.10059pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25247520
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    47. ↵
      1. Cho H,
      2. Iribarren S,
      3. Schnall R
      . Technology-Mediated interventions and quality of life for persons living with HIV/AIDS. A systematic review. Appl Clin Inform 2017;8:348–68.doi:10.4338/ACI-2016-10-R-0175pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28401246
      OpenUrlPubMed
    48. ↵
      1. Claborn KR,
      2. Fernandez A,
      3. Wray T, et al
      . Computer-Based HIV adherence promotion interventions: a systematic review: translation behavioral medicine. Transl Behav Med 2015;5:294-306–306.doi:10.1007/s13142-015-0317-0pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26327935
      OpenUrlPubMed
    49. ↵
      1. Clay PG,
      2. Yuet WC,
      3. Moecklinghoff CH, et al
      . A meta-analysis comparing 48-week treatment outcomes of single and multi-tablet antiretroviral regimens for the treatment of people living with HIV. AIDS Res Ther 2018;15:17. doi:10.1186/s12981-018-0204-0pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30373620
      OpenUrlPubMed
    50. ↵
      1. Crepaz N,
      2. Baack BN,
      3. Higa DH, et al
      . Effects of integrated interventions on transmission risk and care continuum outcomes in persons living with HIV: meta-analysis, 1996-2014. AIDS 2015;29:2371–83.doi:10.1097/QAD.0000000000000879pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26372483
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    51. ↵
      1. Crepaz N,
      2. Tungol-Ashmon MV,
      3. Vosburgh HW, et al
      . Are couple-based interventions more effective than interventions delivered to individuals in promoting HIV protective behaviors? A meta-analysis. AIDS Care 2015;27:1361–6.doi:10.1080/09540121.2015.1112353pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26608175
      OpenUrlPubMed
    52. ↵
      1. Daher J,
      2. Vijh R,
      3. Linthwaite B, et al
      . Do digital innovations for HIV and sexually transmitted infections work? results from a systematic review (1996-2017). BMJ Open 2017;7:e017604. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017604pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29101138
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    53. ↵
      1. de Bruin M,
      2. Viechtbauer W,
      3. Schaalma HP, et al
      . Standard care impact on effects of highly active antiretroviral therapy adherence interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med 2010;170:240-50–50.doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.536pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20142568
      OpenUrlPubMed
    54. ↵
      1. de Jongh TE,
      2. Gurol-Urganci I,
      3. Allen E, et al
      . Integration of antenatal care services with health programmes in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review. J Glob Health 2016;6:010403. doi:10.7189/jogh.06.010403pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27231539
      OpenUrlPubMed
    55. ↵
      1. de Pee S,
      2. Grede N,
      3. Mehra D, et al
      . The enabling effect of food assistance in improving adherence and/or treatment completion for antiretroviral therapy and tuberculosis treatment: a literature review. AIDS Behav 2014;18 Suppl 5:531–41.doi:10.1007/s10461-014-0730-2pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24619602
      OpenUrlPubMed
    56. ↵
      1. Decroo T,
      2. Rasschaert F,
      3. Telfer B, et al
      . Community-Based antiretroviral therapy programs can overcome barriers to retention of patients and decongest health services in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Int Health 2013;5:169–79.doi:10.1093/inthealth/iht016pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24030268
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    57. ↵
      1. Demonceau J,
      2. Ruppar T,
      3. Kristanto P, et al
      . Identification and assessment of adherence-enhancing interventions in studies assessing medication adherence through electronically compiled drug dosing histories: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Drugs 2013;73:545–62.doi:10.1007/s40265-013-0041-3pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23588595
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    58. ↵
      1. Feyissa GT,
      2. Demissie TD
      . Effect of point of care CD4 cell count tests on retention of patients and rates of antiretroviral therapy initiation in sub-Saharan African countries: a systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 2014;12:395–429.doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2014-1383
      OpenUrl
    59. ↵
      1. Ford N,
      2. Migone C,
      3. Calmy A, et al
      . Benefits and risks of rapid initiation of antiretroviral therapy. AIDS 2018;32:17–23.doi:10.1097/QAD.0000000000001671pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29112073
      OpenUrlPubMed
    60. ↵
      1. Ford N,
      2. Nachega JB,
      3. Engel ME, et al
      . Directly observed antiretroviral therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Lancet 2009;374:2064–71.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61671-8pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19954833
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    61. ↵
      1. Fox MP,
      2. Rosen S,
      3. Geldsetzer P, et al
      . Interventions to improve the rate or timing of initiation of antiretroviral therapy for HIV in sub-Saharan Africa: meta-analyses of effectiveness. J Int AIDS Soc 2016;19:20888. doi:10.7448/IAS.19.1.20888pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27507249
      OpenUrlPubMed
    62. ↵
      1. Ganguli A,
      2. Clewell J,
      3. Shillington AC
      . The impact of patient support programs on adherence, clinical, humanistic, and economic patient outcomes: a targeted systematic review. Patient Prefer Adherence 2016;10:711-25–25.doi:10.2147/PPA.S101175pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27175071
      OpenUrlPubMed
    63. ↵
      1. Gaston GB,
      2. Gutierrez SM,
      3. Nisanci A
      . Interventions that retain African Americans in HIV/AIDS treatment: implications for social work practice and research. Soc Work 2015;60:35–42.doi:10.1093/sw/swu050
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    64. ↵
      1. Geldsetzer P,
      2. Yapa HMN,
      3. Vaikath M, et al
      . A systematic review of interventions to improve postpartum retention of women in PMTCT and art care. J Int AIDS Soc 2016;19:20679. doi:10.7448/IAS.19.1.20679pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27118443
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    65. ↵
      1. Genberg BL,
      2. Shangani S,
      3. Sabatino K, et al
      . Improving engagement in the HIV care cascade: a systematic review of interventions involving people living with HIV/AIDS as Peers. AIDS Behav 2016;20:2452–63.doi:10.1007/s10461-016-1307-zpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26837630
      OpenUrlPubMed
    66. ↵
      1. Govindasamy D,
      2. Meghij J,
      3. Kebede Negussi E, et al
      . Interventions to improve or facilitate linkage to or retention in pre-ART (HIV) care and initiation of ART in low- and middle-income settings--a systematic review. J Int AIDS Soc 2014;17:19032. doi:10.7448/IAS.17.1.19032pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25095831
      OpenUrlPubMed
    67. ↵
      1. Hart JE,
      2. Jeon CY,
      3. Ivers LC, et al
      . Effect of directly observed therapy for highly active antiretroviral therapy on virologic, immunologic, and adherence outcomes: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2010;54:167–79.doi:10.1097/QAI.0b013e3181d9a330pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20375848
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    68. ↵
      1. Herrmann ES,
      2. Matusiewicz AK,
      3. Stitzer ML, et al
      . Contingency management interventions for HIV, tuberculosis, and hepatitis control among individuals with substance use disorders: a Systematized review. J Subst Abuse Treat 2017;72:117–25.doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2016.06.009pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27394070
      OpenUrlPubMed
    69. ↵
      1. Higa DH,
      2. Crepaz N,
      3. Mullins MM, et al
      . Identifying best practices for increasing linkage to, retention, and Re-engagement in HIV medical care: findings from a systematic review, 1996-2014. AIDS Behav 2016;20:951–66.doi:10.1007/s10461-015-1204-xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26404014
      OpenUrlPubMed
    70. ↵
      1. Higa DH,
      2. Marks G,
      3. Crepaz N, et al
      . Interventions to improve retention in HIV primary care: a systematic review of U.S. studies. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep 2012;9:313–25.doi:10.1007/s11904-012-0136-6
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    71. ↵
      1. Higgs ES,
      2. Goldberg AB,
      3. Labrique AB, et al
      . Understanding the role of mHealth and other media interventions for behavior change to enhance child survival and development in low- and middle-income countries: an evidence review. J Health Commun 2014;19 Suppl 1:164–89.doi:10.1080/10810730.2014.929763pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25207452
      OpenUrlPubMed
    72. ↵
      1. Hill S,
      2. Kavookjian J
      . Motivational interviewing as a behavioral intervention to increase HAART adherence in patients who are HIV-positive: a systematic review of the literature. AIDS Care 2012;24:583–92.doi:10.1080/09540121.2011.630354pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22292452
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    73. ↵
      1. Kanters S,
      2. Park JJ,
      3. Chan K, et al
      . Use of Peers to improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy: a global network meta-analysis. J Int AIDS Soc 2016;19:21141. doi:10.7448/IAS.19.1.21141pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27914185
      OpenUrlPubMed
    74. ↵
      1. Kanters S,
      2. Park JJH,
      3. Chan K, et al
      . Interventions to improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet HIV 2017;4:e31–40.doi:10.1016/S2352-3018(16)30206-5pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27863996
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    75. ↵
      1. Keane J,
      2. Pharr JR,
      3. Buttner MP, et al
      . Interventions to reduce loss to follow-up during all stages of the HIV care continuum in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. AIDS Behav 2017;21:1745–54.doi:10.1007/s10461-016-1532-5pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27578001
      OpenUrlPubMed
    76. ↵
      1. Knight L,
      2. Mukumbang FC,
      3. Schatz E
      . Behavioral and cognitive interventions to improve treatment adherence and access to HIV care among older adults in sub-Saharan Africa: an updated systematic review. Syst Rev 2018;7:114. doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0759-9pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30071903
      OpenUrlPubMed
    77. ↵
      1. Kredo T,
      2. Adeniyi FB,
      3. Bateganya M, et al
      . Task shifting from doctors to non-doctors for initiation and maintenance of antiretroviral therapy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;17:CD007331.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007331.pub3pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24980859
      OpenUrlPubMed
    78. ↵
      1. Kredo T,
      2. Ford N,
      3. Adeniyi FB, et al
      . Decentralising HIV treatment in lower- and middle-income countries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;17:CD009987.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009987.pub2pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23807693
      OpenUrlPubMed
    79. ↵
      1. Lima ICVde,
      2. Galvão MTG,
      3. Alexandre HdeO, et al
      . Information and communication technologies for adherence to antiretroviral treatment in adults with HIV/AIDS. Int J Med Inform 2016;92:54-61–61.doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.04.013pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27318071
      OpenUrlPubMed
    80. ↵
      1. Ma PHX,
      2. Chan ZCY,
      3. Loke AY
      . Self-Stigma reduction interventions for people living with HIV/AIDS and their families: a systematic review. AIDS Behav 2019;23:707–41.doi:10.1007/s10461-018-2304-1pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30298241
      OpenUrlPubMed
    81. ↵
      1. MacPherson P,
      2. Munthali C,
      3. Ferguson J, et al
      . Service delivery interventions to improve adolescents' linkage, retention and adherence to antiretroviral therapy and HIV care. Trop Med Int Health 2015;20:1015–32.doi:10.1111/tmi.12517pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25877007
      OpenUrlPubMed
    82. ↵
      1. Manias E,
      2. Williams A
      . Medication adherence in people of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds: a meta-analysis. Ann Pharmacother 2010;44:964–82.doi:10.1345/aph.1M572pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20442356
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    83. ↵
      1. Mathes T,
      2. Pieper D,
      3. Antoine S-L, et al
      . Adherence-enhancing interventions for highly active antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected patients - a systematic review. HIV Med 2013;14:583–95.doi:10.1111/hiv.12051pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23773654
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    84. ↵
      1. Mavegam BO,
      2. Pharr JR,
      3. Cruz P, et al
      . Effective interventions to improve young adults' linkage to HIV care in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. AIDS Care 2017;29:1198–204.doi:10.1080/09540121.2017.1306637pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28325077
      OpenUrlPubMed
    85. ↵
      1. Mayer JE,
      2. Fontelo P
      . Meta-Analysis on the effect of text message reminders for HIV-related compliance. AIDS Care 2017;29:409–17.doi:10.1080/09540121.2016.1214674pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27477580
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    86. ↵
      1. Mbeye NM,
      2. Adetokunboh O,
      3. Negussie E, et al
      . Shifting tasks from pharmacy to non-pharmacy personnel for providing antiretroviral therapy to people living with HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2017;7:e015072. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015072pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28851770
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    87. ↵
      1. Mbuagbaw L,
      2. Sivaramalingam B,
      3. Navarro T, et al
      . Interventions for enhancing adherence to antiretroviral therapy (art): a systematic review of high quality studies. AIDS Patient Care STDS 2015;29:248–66.doi:10.1089/apc.2014.0308pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25825938
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    88. ↵
      1. Mbuagbaw L,
      2. Ye C,
      3. Thabane L
      . Motivational interviewing for improving outcomes in youth living with HIV. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;9:CD009748.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009748.pub2pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22972147
      OpenUrlPubMed
    89. ↵
      1. Medley A,
      2. Bachanas P,
      3. Grillo M, et al
      . Integrating prevention interventions for people living with HIV into care and treatment programs: a systematic review of the evidence. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2015;68 Suppl 3:S286-96–96.doi:10.1097/QAI.0000000000000520pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25768868
      OpenUrlPubMed
    90. ↵
      1. Mills EJ,
      2. Lester R,
      3. Thorlund K, et al
      . Interventions to promote adherence to antiretroviral therapy in Africa: a network meta-analysis. Lancet HIV 2014;1:e104–11.doi:10.1016/S2352-3018(14)00003-4pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26424119
      OpenUrlPubMed
    91. ↵
      1. Mizuno Y,
      2. Higa DH,
      3. Leighton CA, et al
      . Is HIV patient navigation associated with HIV care continuum outcomes? AIDS 2018;32:2557–71.doi:10.1097/QAD.0000000000001987pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30102661
      OpenUrlPubMed
    92. ↵
      1. Muessig KE,
      2. Nekkanti M,
      3. Bauermeister J, et al
      . A systematic review of recent smartphone, Internet and web 2.0 interventions to address the HIV continuum of care. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep 2015;12:173–90.doi:10.1007/s11904-014-0239-3
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    93. ↵
      1. Murray KR,
      2. Dulli LS,
      3. Ridgeway K, et al
      . Improving retention in HIV care among adolescents and adults in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of the literature. PLoS One 2017;12:e0184879. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0184879pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28961253
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    94. ↵
      1. Musayón-Oblitas Y,
      2. Cárcamo C,
      3. Gimbel S
      . Counseling for improving adherence to antiretroviral treatment: a systematic review. AIDS Care 2019;31:4–13.doi:10.1080/09540121.2018.1533224pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30309239
      OpenUrlPubMed
    95. ↵
      1. Mutasa-Apollo T,
      2. Ford N,
      3. Wiens M, et al
      . Effect of frequency of clinic visits and medication pick-up on antiretroviral treatment outcomes: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. J Int AIDS Soc 2017;20:21647. doi:10.7448/IAS.20.5.21647pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28770599
      OpenUrlPubMed
    96. ↵
      1. Nachega JB,
      2. Adetokunboh O,
      3. Uthman OA, et al
      . Community-Based interventions to improve and sustain antiretroviral therapy adherence, retention in HIV care and clinical outcomes in low- and middle-income countries for achieving the UNAIDS 90-90-90 targets. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep 2016;13:241–55.doi:10.1007/s11904-016-0325-9pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27475643
      OpenUrlPubMed
    97. ↵
      1. Parienti Jean‐Jacques,
      2. Bangsberg DR,
      3. Verdon R, et al
      . Better adherence with Once‐Daily antiretroviral regimens: a Meta‐Analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2009;48:488.
      OpenUrl
    98. ↵
      1. Park LG,
      2. Howie-Esquivel J,
      3. Dracup K
      . A quantitative systematic review of the efficacy of mobile phone interventions to improve medication adherence. J Adv Nurs 2014;70:1932–53.doi:10.1111/jan.12400pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24689978
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    99. ↵
      1. Perazzo J,
      2. Reyes D,
      3. Webel A
      . A systematic review of health literacy interventions for people living with HIV. AIDS Behav 2017;21:812–21.doi:10.1007/s10461-016-1329-6pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26864691
      OpenUrlPubMed
    100. ↵
      1. Purnomo J,
      2. Coote K,
      3. Mao L, et al
      . Using eHealth to engage and retain priority populations in the HIV treatment and care cascade in the Asia-Pacific region: a systematic review of literature. BMC Infect Dis 2018;18:82. doi:10.1186/s12879-018-2972-5pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29454322
      OpenUrlPubMed
    101. ↵
      1. Quintana Y,
      2. Gonzalez Martorell EA,
      3. Fahy D, et al
      . A systematic review on promoting adherence to antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected patients using mobile phone technology. Appl Clin Inform 2018;9:450-466–66.doi:10.1055/s-0038-1660516pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29925099
      OpenUrlPubMed
    102. ↵
      1. Ramjan R,
      2. Calmy A,
      3. Vitoria M, et al
      . Systematic review and meta-analysis: patient and programme impact of fixed-dose combination antiretroviral therapy. Trop Med Int Health 2014;19:501–13.doi:10.1111/tmi.12297pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24628918
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    103. ↵
      1. Ridgeway K,
      2. Dulli LS,
      3. Murray KR, et al
      . Interventions to improve antiretroviral therapy adherence among adolescents in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of the literature. PLoS One 2018;13:e0189770. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0189770pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29293523
      OpenUrlPubMed
    104. ↵
      1. Riley KE,
      2. Kalichman S
      . Mindfulness-based stress reduction for people living with HIV/AIDS: preliminary review of intervention trial methodologies and findings. Health Psychol Rev 2015;9:224–43.doi:10.1080/17437199.2014.895928pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26209210
      OpenUrlPubMed
    105. ↵
      1. Risher KA,
      2. Kapoor S,
      3. Daramola AM, et al
      . Challenges in the evaluation of interventions to improve engagement along the HIV care continuum in the United States: a systematic review. AIDS Behav 2017;21:2101–23.doi:10.1007/s10461-017-1687-8pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28120257
      OpenUrlPubMed
    106. ↵
      1. Robbins RN,
      2. Spector AY,
      3. Mellins CA, et al
      . Optimizing art adherence: update for HIV treatment and prevention. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep 2014;11:423–33.doi:10.1007/s11904-014-0229-5pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25304006
      OpenUrlPubMed
    107. ↵
      1. Rocha BS,
      2. Silveira MPT,
      3. Moraes CG, et al
      . Pharmaceutical interventions in antiretroviral therapy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Clin Pharm Ther 2015;40:251–8.doi:10.1111/jcpt.12253pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25810127
      OpenUrlPubMed
    108. ↵
      1. Rueda S,
      2. Park-Wyllie LY,
      3. Bayoumi A, et al
      . Patient support and education for promoting adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy for HIV/AIDS. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;18.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001442.pub2
    109. ↵
      1. Ruzagira E,
      2. Baisley K,
      3. Kamali A, et al
      . Linkage to HIV care after home-based HIV counselling and testing in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Trop Med Int Health 2017;22:807–21.doi:10.1111/tmi.12888pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28449385
      OpenUrlPubMed
    110. ↵
      1. Saberi P,
      2. Dong BJ,
      3. Johnson MO, et al
      . The impact of HIV clinical pharmacists on HIV treatment outcomes: a systematic review. Patient Prefer Adherence 2012;6:297–322.doi:10.2147/PPA.S30244pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22536064
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    111. ↵
      1. Saberi P,
      2. Johnson MO
      . Technology-Based self-care methods of improving antiretroviral adherence: a systematic review. PLoS One 2011;6:e27533. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027533pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22140446
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    112. ↵
      1. Scott-Sheldon LAJ,
      2. Carey KB,
      3. Johnson BT, et al
      . Behavioral interventions targeting alcohol use among people living with HIV/AIDS: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS Behav 2017;21:126–43.doi:10.1007/s10461-017-1886-3pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28831609
      OpenUrlPubMed
    113. ↵
      1. Sharma M
      . Evaluating the efficiency of community-based HIV testing and counseling strategies to decrease HIV burden in sub-Saharan Africa. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 2017;78.
    114. ↵
      1. Shaw S,
      2. Amico KR
      . Antiretroviral therapy adherence enhancing interventions for adolescents and young adults 13–24 years of age. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 2016;72:387–99.doi:10.1097/QAI.0000000000000977
      OpenUrl
    115. ↵
      1. Suthar AB,
      2. Nagata JM,
      3. Nsanzimana S, et al
      . Performance-Based financing for improving HIV/AIDS service delivery: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2017;17:6. doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1962-9pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28052771
      OpenUrlPubMed
    116. ↵
      1. Swann M
      . Economic strengthening for retention in HIV care and adherence to antiretroviral therapy: a review of the evidence. AIDS Care 2018;30:99–125.doi:10.1080/09540121.2018.1479030
      OpenUrl
    117. ↵
      1. Tang AM,
      2. Quick T,
      3. Chung M, et al
      . Nutrition assessment, counseling, and support interventions to improve health-related outcomes in people living with HIV/AIDS: a systematic review of the literature. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2015;68 Suppl 3:S340–9.doi:10.1097/QAI.0000000000000521pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25768873
      OpenUrlPubMed
    118. ↵
      1. Van Camp YP,
      2. Van Rompaey B,
      3. Elseviers MM
      . Nurse-Led interventions to enhance adherence to chronic medication: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2013;69:761–70.doi:10.1007/s00228-012-1419-ypmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23052418
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    119. ↵
      1. van der Heijden I,
      2. Abrahams N,
      3. Sinclair D, et al
      . Psychosocial group interventions to improve psychological well-being in adults living with HIV. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017;68.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010806.pub2
    120. ↵
      1. van Velthoven MHMMT,
      2. Brusamento S,
      3. Majeed A, et al
      . Scope and effectiveness of mobile phone messaging for HIV/AIDS care: a systematic review. Psychol Health Med 2013;18:182-202–202.doi:10.1080/13548506.2012.701310pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22788357
      OpenUrlPubMed
    121. ↵
      1. van Velthoven MHMMT,
      2. Tudor Car L,
      3. Car J, et al
      . Telephone consultation for improving health of people living with or at risk of HIV: a systematic review. PLoS One 2012;7:e36105. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036105pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22615751
      OpenUrlPubMed
    122. ↵
      1. Vervloet M,
      2. Linn AJ,
      3. van Weert JCM, et al
      . The effectiveness of interventions using electronic reminders to improve adherence to chronic medication: a systematic review of the literature. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012;19:696–704.doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000748
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    123. ↵
      1. Vojnov L,
      2. Markby J,
      3. Boeke C, et al
      . Poc CD4 testing improves linkage to HIV care and timeliness of art initiation in a public health approach: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2016;11:e0155256. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0155256
    124. ↵
      1. Wise J,
      2. Operario D
      . Use of electronic reminder devices to improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy: a systematic review. AIDS Patient Care STDS 2008;22:495–504.doi:10.1089/apc.2007.0180
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    125. ↵
      1. Wouters E,
      2. Van Damme W,
      3. van Rensburg D, et al
      . Impact of community-based support services on antiretroviral treatment programme delivery and outcomes in resource-limited countries: a synthetic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2012;12:194. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-194pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22776682
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    126. ↵
      1. Wynberg E,
      2. Cooke G,
      3. Shroufi A, et al
      . Impact of point-of-care CD4 testing on linkage to HIV care: a systematic review. J Int AIDS Soc 2014;17:18809. doi:10.7448/IAS.17.1.18809pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24447595
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    127. ↵
      1. Yang Y
      . State of the science: the efficacy of a multicomponent intervention for art adherence among people living with HIV. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care 2014;25:297–308.doi:10.1016/j.jana.2013.08.003
      OpenUrl
    128. ↵
      1. Young T,
      2. Busgeeth K
      . Home-Based care for reducing morbidity and mortality in people infected with HIV/AIDS. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;13:CD005417.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005417.pub2pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20091575
      OpenUrlPubMed
    129. ↵
      1. Ng M,
      2. Gakidou E,
      3. Levin-Rector A, et al
      . Assessment of population-level effect of Avahan, an HIV-prevention initiative in India. The Lancet 2011;378:1643–52.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61390-1
      OpenUrl
    130. ↵
      1. Haberer JE,
      2. Sabin L,
      3. Amico KR, et al
      . Improving antiretroviral therapy adherence in resource-limited settings at scale: a discussion of interventions and recommendations. J Int AIDS Soc 2017;20:21371. doi:10.7448/IAS.20.1.21371pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28630651
      OpenUrlPubMed
    131. ↵
      1. World Health Organization
      . Progress report 2016: prevent HIV test and treat all: who support for country impact: World Health organization 2016.
    132. ↵
      1. Geng EH,
      2. Odeny TA,
      3. Lyamuya R, et al
      . Retention in care and patient-reported reasons for undocumented transfer or stopping care among HIV-infected patients on antiretroviral therapy in eastern Africa: application of a sampling-based approach. Clin Infect Dis 2016;62:935–44.doi:10.1093/cid/civ1004pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26679625
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    133. ↵
      1. Mugavero MJ,
      2. Westfall AO,
      3. Zinski A, et al
      . Measuring retention in HIV care: the elusive gold standard. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2012;61:574-80–80.doi:10.1097/QAI.0b013e318273762fpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23011397
      OpenUrlPubMed

    Footnotes

    • Contributors LM developed the first draft of the manuscript. AH, AW, LM and BZ extracted data and created tables. EA, DOL, BR, MS, DM, LPR, CL, SM, ACB, WH, AH, AW, BZ and LT revised several versions of the manuscript and approved the final version. LM is the guarantor of the manuscript.

    • Funding This work was supported by The Ontario HIV Treatment Network (OHTN) grant number EFP-1096-Junior Inv.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplemental information.