Cargando…

Evaluation of Three Sampling Methods to Monitor Outcomes of Antiretroviral Treatment Programmes in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

BACKGROUND: Retention of patients on antiretroviral therapy (ART) over time is a proxy for quality of care and an outcome indicator to monitor ART programs. Using existing databases (Antiretroviral in Lower Income Countries of the International Databases to Evaluate AIDS and Médecins Sans Frontières...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tassie, Jean-Michel, Malateste, Karen, Pujades-Rodríguez, Mar, Poulet, Elisabeth, Bennett, Diane, Harries, Anthony, Mahy, Mary, Schechter, Mauro, Souteyrand, Yves, Dabis, François
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2978082/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21085709
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013899
_version_ 1782191209393946624
author Tassie, Jean-Michel
Malateste, Karen
Pujades-Rodríguez, Mar
Poulet, Elisabeth
Bennett, Diane
Harries, Anthony
Mahy, Mary
Schechter, Mauro
Souteyrand, Yves
Dabis, François
author_facet Tassie, Jean-Michel
Malateste, Karen
Pujades-Rodríguez, Mar
Poulet, Elisabeth
Bennett, Diane
Harries, Anthony
Mahy, Mary
Schechter, Mauro
Souteyrand, Yves
Dabis, François
author_sort Tassie, Jean-Michel
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Retention of patients on antiretroviral therapy (ART) over time is a proxy for quality of care and an outcome indicator to monitor ART programs. Using existing databases (Antiretroviral in Lower Income Countries of the International Databases to Evaluate AIDS and Médecins Sans Frontières), we evaluated three sampling approaches to simplify the generation of outcome indicators. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used individual patient data from 27 ART sites and included 27,201 ART-naive adults (≥15 years) who initiated ART in 2005. For each site, we generated two outcome indicators at 12 months, retention on ART and proportion of patients lost to follow-up (LFU), first using all patient data and then within a smaller group of patients selected using three sampling methods (random, systematic and consecutive sampling). For each method and each site, 500 samples were generated, and the average result was compared with the unsampled value. The 95% sampling distribution (SD) was expressed as the 2.5(th) and 97.5(th) percentile values from the 500 samples. Overall, retention on ART was 76.5% (range 58.9–88.6) and the proportion of patients LFU, 13.5% (range 0.8–31.9). Estimates of retention from sampling (n = 5696) were 76.5% (SD 75.4–77.7) for random, 76.5% (75.3–77.5) for systematic and 76.0% (74.1–78.2) for the consecutive method. Estimates for the proportion of patients LFU were 13.5% (12.6–14.5), 13.5% (12.6–14.3) and 14.0% (12.5–15.5), respectively. With consecutive sampling, 50% of sites had SD within ±5% of the unsampled site value. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that random, systematic or consecutive sampling methods are feasible for monitoring ART indicators at national level. However, sampling may not produce precise estimates in some sites.
format Text
id pubmed-2978082
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-29780822010-11-17 Evaluation of Three Sampling Methods to Monitor Outcomes of Antiretroviral Treatment Programmes in Low- and Middle-Income Countries Tassie, Jean-Michel Malateste, Karen Pujades-Rodríguez, Mar Poulet, Elisabeth Bennett, Diane Harries, Anthony Mahy, Mary Schechter, Mauro Souteyrand, Yves Dabis, François PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Retention of patients on antiretroviral therapy (ART) over time is a proxy for quality of care and an outcome indicator to monitor ART programs. Using existing databases (Antiretroviral in Lower Income Countries of the International Databases to Evaluate AIDS and Médecins Sans Frontières), we evaluated three sampling approaches to simplify the generation of outcome indicators. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used individual patient data from 27 ART sites and included 27,201 ART-naive adults (≥15 years) who initiated ART in 2005. For each site, we generated two outcome indicators at 12 months, retention on ART and proportion of patients lost to follow-up (LFU), first using all patient data and then within a smaller group of patients selected using three sampling methods (random, systematic and consecutive sampling). For each method and each site, 500 samples were generated, and the average result was compared with the unsampled value. The 95% sampling distribution (SD) was expressed as the 2.5(th) and 97.5(th) percentile values from the 500 samples. Overall, retention on ART was 76.5% (range 58.9–88.6) and the proportion of patients LFU, 13.5% (range 0.8–31.9). Estimates of retention from sampling (n = 5696) were 76.5% (SD 75.4–77.7) for random, 76.5% (75.3–77.5) for systematic and 76.0% (74.1–78.2) for the consecutive method. Estimates for the proportion of patients LFU were 13.5% (12.6–14.5), 13.5% (12.6–14.3) and 14.0% (12.5–15.5), respectively. With consecutive sampling, 50% of sites had SD within ±5% of the unsampled site value. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that random, systematic or consecutive sampling methods are feasible for monitoring ART indicators at national level. However, sampling may not produce precise estimates in some sites. Public Library of Science 2010-11-10 /pmc/articles/PMC2978082/ /pubmed/21085709 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013899 Text en This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Public Domain declaration which stipulates that, once placed in the public domain, this work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Public Domain declaration, which stipulates that, once placed in the public domain, this work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose.
spellingShingle Research Article
Tassie, Jean-Michel
Malateste, Karen
Pujades-Rodríguez, Mar
Poulet, Elisabeth
Bennett, Diane
Harries, Anthony
Mahy, Mary
Schechter, Mauro
Souteyrand, Yves
Dabis, François
Evaluation of Three Sampling Methods to Monitor Outcomes of Antiretroviral Treatment Programmes in Low- and Middle-Income Countries
title Evaluation of Three Sampling Methods to Monitor Outcomes of Antiretroviral Treatment Programmes in Low- and Middle-Income Countries
title_full Evaluation of Three Sampling Methods to Monitor Outcomes of Antiretroviral Treatment Programmes in Low- and Middle-Income Countries
title_fullStr Evaluation of Three Sampling Methods to Monitor Outcomes of Antiretroviral Treatment Programmes in Low- and Middle-Income Countries
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Three Sampling Methods to Monitor Outcomes of Antiretroviral Treatment Programmes in Low- and Middle-Income Countries
title_short Evaluation of Three Sampling Methods to Monitor Outcomes of Antiretroviral Treatment Programmes in Low- and Middle-Income Countries
title_sort evaluation of three sampling methods to monitor outcomes of antiretroviral treatment programmes in low- and middle-income countries
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2978082/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21085709
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013899
work_keys_str_mv AT tassiejeanmichel evaluationofthreesamplingmethodstomonitoroutcomesofantiretroviraltreatmentprogrammesinlowandmiddleincomecountries
AT malatestekaren evaluationofthreesamplingmethodstomonitoroutcomesofantiretroviraltreatmentprogrammesinlowandmiddleincomecountries
AT pujadesrodriguezmar evaluationofthreesamplingmethodstomonitoroutcomesofantiretroviraltreatmentprogrammesinlowandmiddleincomecountries
AT pouletelisabeth evaluationofthreesamplingmethodstomonitoroutcomesofantiretroviraltreatmentprogrammesinlowandmiddleincomecountries
AT bennettdiane evaluationofthreesamplingmethodstomonitoroutcomesofantiretroviraltreatmentprogrammesinlowandmiddleincomecountries
AT harriesanthony evaluationofthreesamplingmethodstomonitoroutcomesofantiretroviraltreatmentprogrammesinlowandmiddleincomecountries
AT mahymary evaluationofthreesamplingmethodstomonitoroutcomesofantiretroviraltreatmentprogrammesinlowandmiddleincomecountries
AT schechtermauro evaluationofthreesamplingmethodstomonitoroutcomesofantiretroviraltreatmentprogrammesinlowandmiddleincomecountries
AT souteyrandyves evaluationofthreesamplingmethodstomonitoroutcomesofantiretroviraltreatmentprogrammesinlowandmiddleincomecountries
AT dabisfrancois evaluationofthreesamplingmethodstomonitoroutcomesofantiretroviraltreatmentprogrammesinlowandmiddleincomecountries
AT evaluationofthreesamplingmethodstomonitoroutcomesofantiretroviraltreatmentprogrammesinlowandmiddleincomecountries