BackgroundAfter observing persistently low CD4 counts at initial HIV diagnosis in South Africa, we sought to determine risk factors for late-stage HIV disease presentation among adults.MethodsWe surveyed adults prior to HIV testing at four outpatient clinics in Durban from August 2010 to November 2011. All HIV-infected adults were offered CD4 testing, and late-stage HIV disease was defined as a CD4 count <100 cells/mm3. We used multivariate regression models to determine the effects of sex, emotional health, social support, distance from clinic, employment, perceived barriers to receiving healthcare, and foregoing healthcare to use money for food, clothing, or housing (“competing needs to healthcare”) on presentation with late-stage HIV disease.ResultsAmong 3,669 adults screened, 830 were enrolled, newly-diagnosed with HIV and obtained a CD4 result. Among those, 279 (33.6%) presented with late-stage HIV disease. In multivariate analyses, participants who lived ≥5 kilometers from the test site [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 2.8, 95% CI 1.7–4.7], reported competing needs to healthcare (AOR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2–2.4), were male (AOR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2–2.3), worked outside the home (AOR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1–2.1), perceived health service delivery barriers (AOR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1–2.1), and/or had poor emotional health (AOR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0–1.9) had higher odds of late-stage HIV disease presentation.ConclusionsIndependent risk factors for late-stage HIV disease presentation were from diverse domains, including geographic, economic, demographic, social, and psychosocial. These findings can inform various interventions, such as mobile testing or financial assistance, to reduce the risk of presentation with late-stage HIV disease.

A new approach to the contextualization, content development, and delivery of LMIC guidelines is needed to improve outcomes.

No abstract

Background Process evaluation is increasingly recognized as an important component of effective implementation research and yet, there has been surprisingly little work to understand what constitutes best practice. Researchers use different methodologies describing causal pathways and understanding barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions in diverse contexts and settings. We report on challenges and lessons learned from undertaking process evaluation of seven hypertension intervention trials funded through the Global Alliance of Chronic Diseases (GACD). Methods Preliminary data collected from the GACD hypertension teams in 2015 were used to inform a template for data collection. Case study themes included: (1) description of the intervention, (2) objectives of the process evaluation, (3) methods including theoretical basis, (4) main findings of the study and the process evaluation, (5) implications for the project, policy and research practice and (6) lessons for future process evaluations. The information was summarized and reported descriptively and narratively and key lessons were identified. Results The case studies were from low- and middle-income countries and Indigenous communities in Canada. They were implementation research projects with intervention arm. Six theoretical approaches were used but most comprised of mixed-methods approaches. Each of the process evaluations generated findings on whether interventions were implemented with fidelity, the extent of capacity building, contextual factors and the extent to which relationships between researchers and community impacted on intervention implementation. The most important learning was that although process evaluation is time consuming, it enhances understanding of factors affecting implementation of complex interventions. The research highlighted the need to initiate process evaluations early on in the project, to help guide design of the intervention; and the importance of effective communication between researchers responsible for trial implementation, process evaluation and outcome evaluation. Conclusion This research demonstrates the important role of process evaluation in understanding implementation process of complex interventions. This can help to highlight a broad range of system requirements such as new policies and capacity building to support implementation. Process evaluation is crucial in understanding contextual factors that may impact intervention implementation which is important in considering whether or not the intervention can be translated to other contexts. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-019-7261-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.