Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Adapting and pilot testing an evidence-based ARV adherence intervention for China. Ann B. Williams, Honghong Wang, Xianhong Li, Kris Fennie, Jane Burgess UCLA School of Nursing & Xiangya School of Nursing Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. & Changsha, Hunan, China.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Ann B. Williams, Honghong Wang, Xianhong Li, Kris Fennie, Jane Burgess
UCLA School of Nursing & Xiangya School of NursingLos Angeles, California, U.S.A. & Changsha, Hunan, China
This is the equivalent of missing 1 dose per month on a once-a-day regimen.
Only 6% of patients report full adherence, with a mean level of 56% adherence. (Murphy et al., 2003)
Adherence may be the variable determining HAART failure or success. (Knobel et al., 1999)
While patients report a preference for once-a-day dosing, research suggests adherence rates are no better for QD dosing. (Stone et al., 2004)Adherence required…
…and adherence achieved
OF SELECTING FOR
MOST DANGEROUS PLACE:
SUPPRESSION OF VIRAL REPLICATION
A focus limited to personal behavior change leads to a programmatic emphasis on individual responsibility for health, at the cost of an examination of individual response-ability, or the capacity of the individual for responding to his or her personal needs or the challenges posed by the environment.
Health education, health promotion and the open society: An historical perspective.
HEQ, 16: 17-30, 1989
Selected characteristics of ATHENA participants at baseline*
*These characteristics did not differ significantly between the
intervention and control groups.
A greater proportion of subjects in the intervention group had adherence greater than 90% at each time point compared to the control group. The difference over time is significant (Extended Mantel-Haenszel Test: 5.80, p=.02)
ARV status at baseline
Presumed HIV transmission routes
Male: 82 (72%)
Female: 32 (28%)
< 30 32 (28%)
30 – 45 57 (50%)
> 45 25 (22%)
Married 59 (52%)
High school or college 46 (40%)
Stably Employed 32 (28%)
(OR = 2.84, 95% CI 1.26, 6.38; p = 0.01)
OR 4.10 (1.11, 15.15) p=.03
1.06 (1.02, 1.09) p=.001
3.23 (1.01, 10.00) p=.05
1.10 (1.03, 1.19) p=.02
A greater proportion of subjects in the intervention group had adherence greater than 90% at both time points compared to the control group. The difference over time is significant (Extended Mantel-Haenszel Test: 8.8,p=.003)