Variation in attrition at subnational level: review of the Botswana National HIV/AIDS Treatment (Masa) programme data (2002–2013)
View/ Open
Date
2016-01Author
Masupe, Tiny
Farahani, Mansour
Price, Natalie
El-Halabi, Shenaaz
Mlaudzi, Naledi
Keapoletswe, Koona
Lebelonyane, Refeletswe
Fetogang, Ernest Benny
Chebani, Tony
Kebaabetswe, Poloko
Gabaake, Keba
Auld, Andrew
Nkomazana, Oathokwa
Marlink, Richard
Publisher
Wiley, https://www.wiley.com/en-usType
Published ArticleMetadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Objective: To evaluate the variation in all-cause attrition [mortality and loss to follow-up (LTFU)] among HIV-infected individuals in Botswana by health district during the rapid and massive scale-up of the National Treatment Program.
Methods: Analysis of routinely collected longitudinal data from 226 030 patients who received ART through the Botswana National HIV/AIDS Treatment Program across all 24 health districts from 2002 to 2013. A time-to-event analysis was used to measure crude mortality and loss to follow-up rates (LTFU). A marginal structural model was used to evaluate mortality and LTFU rates by district over time, adjusted for individual-level risk factors (e.g. age, gender, baseline CD4, year of treatment initiation and antiretroviral regimen).
Results: Mortality rates in the districts ranged from the lowest 1.0 (95% CI 0.9–1.1) in Selibe- Phikwe, to the highest 5.0 (95% CI 4.0–6.1), in Mabutsane. There was a wide range of overall LTFU across districts, including rates as low as 4.6 (95% CI 4.4–4.9) losses per 100 person-years in Ngamiland, and 5.9 (95% CI 5.6–6.2) losses per 100 person-years in South East district, to rates as high as 25.4 (95% CI 23.08–27.89) losses per 100 person-years in Mabutsane and 46.3 (95% CI 43.48–49.23) losses per 100 person-years in Okavango. Even when known risk factors for mortality and LTFU were adjusted for, district was a significant predictor of both mortality and LTFU rates.
Conclusion: We found statistically significant variation in attrition (mortality and LTFU) and data quality among districts. These findings suggest that district-level contextual factors affect retention in ttreatment. Further research needs to investigate factors that can potentially cause this variation.