A Scoping Review of How High-Income Country HIV Guidelines Define, Assess, and Address Oral ART Adherence

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background/Objectives: An optimal approach to addressing oral antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence remains unclear in the research literature. This review aimed to identify definitions and thresholds of adherence, proposed methods and frequencies of evaluating adherence levels, barriers to adherence, and interventions to address adherence problems. Methods: A scoping review of HIV guidelines drew on guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Eligible English and French guidelines and their updates concerned adults with HIV and oral ART from developed countries and international health organizations from 2017 to May 2023. Three databases were systematically searched, along with the gray literature. Then, a targeted search for omitted developed countries was conducted. Document selection and data charting were performed with two reviewers for 20% of records and full texts, followed by an independent review. Inductive–deductive content analysis of extracted data was performed using NVivo 14 software. Results: Twenty-four guidelines were identified from seven countries and two international health organizations. Only two defined ART adherence, and none offered a threshold for adequate adherence. Most guidelines (n = 22/24) reported adherence interventions, 20 guidelines (83%) identified adherence barriers, 20 guidelines (83%) noted variable methods to evaluate adherence, and 17 guidelines (71%) proposed a range of frequencies for assessing adherence. Conclusions: This review underscored a lack of consensus around adherence and its management. Very few guidelines defined adherence, none proposed an optimal threshold, and there was no agreement on how to gauge adherence. These gaps and variability raise questions about how clinicians manage adherence in practice. More systematic and preventative approaches to monitoring adherence may be needed.

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