Strategies to reengage patients lost to follow up in HIV care in high income countries, a scoping review

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Despite remarkable achievements in antiretroviral therapy (ART), losses to follow-up (LTFU) might prevent the long-term success of HIV treatment and might delay the achievement of the 90-90-90 objectives. This scoping review is aimed at the description and analysis of the strategies used in high-income countries to reengage LTFU in HIV care, their implementation and impact. METHODS: A scoping review was done following Arksey & O'Malley's methodological framework and recommendations from Joanna Briggs Institute. Peer reviewed articles were searched for in Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science; and grey literature was searched for in Google and other sources of information. Documents were charted according to the information presented on LTFU, the reengagement procedures used in HIV units in high-income countries, published during the last 15 years. In addition, bibliographies of chosen articles were reviewed for additional articles. RESULTS: Twenty-eight documents were finally included, over 80% of them published in the United States later than 2015. Database searches, phone calls and/or mail contacts were the most common strategies used to locate and track LTFU, while motivational interviews and strengths-based techniques were used most often during reengagement visits. Outcomes like tracing activities efficacy, rates of reengagement and viral load reduction were reported as outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: This review shows a recent and growing trend in developing and implementing patient reengagement strategies in HIV care. However, most of these strategies have been implemented in the United States and little information is available for other high-income countries. The procedures used to trace and contact LTFU are similar across reviewed studies, but their impact and sustainability are widely different depending on the country studied.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.