No abstract

Background HIV/AIDS has transformed into a chronic controllable but not yet curable infectious disease as other chronic diseases to some extent. The additional of so called fourth 90% that included the improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for people living with HIV (PLWHIV) required solutions beyond antiretroviral therapy and viral load suppression. This study will explore the role of personality, social economic and prevention strategy effection on HRQoL among people living with HIV/AIDS. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted among PLWHIV aged more than 16 years old in the 10 municipalities in Yunnan Province, China from October 2019 to May 2020, enrolling total 1997 participants. Individual-level HRQoL data were measured by 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) and EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). We assembled municipal-level data about social economic from Yunnan Statistical Yearbook in 2020 and strategy practice information from the self-evaluation system. We used the principal component analysis to build the social economic and strategy effect on each area respectively and one-way ANOVA was used to perform univariate analysis to identify the predictors with significant differences. Finally we used multi-level model (MLM) to explore the personality, social economic and strategy effects in health-related quality of life among PLWHIV. Results The global score for quality of life measured using EQ-5D-5L had an estimated mean score (standard deviation, SD) of 0.901 ± 0.146. The HRQoL score measured using PCS-12 had an estimated mean score (SD) of 46.62 ± 8.55. The mean MCS-12 score (SD) was estimated to be 47.80 ± 9.71. The area-level predictors explained a proportion of 13.6–17.2% for the between-area variation of the HRQoL scores, regardless of the total HRQoL, physical component and mental component. The impacts of stigma (P < 0.01), social support (P < 0.001), anxiety (P < 0.001), depression (P < 0.05) and social economic status (P < 0.05) on HRQoL at the individual-level were significantly different. The plots visualized the impact of individual-level factors on a respondent’s HRQoL was modified by the area-level characteristics. Conclusions The study identified the possible strategy determinant of individual HRQoL of PLWHIV and also the area effect on HRQoL. Stigma, social support, anxiety, depression and social economic status were the individual-level determinants on HRQoL. These could be a valuable resource for evaluating the overall health of the areas and help improve local decision making. Graphic abstract

We compared the discriminative validity, agreement and sensitivity of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D utility scores in people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHIV). We conducted a cross-sectional survey among PLWHIV aged more than 18 years old in 9 municipalities in Yunnan Province, China. A convenience sample was enrolled. We administered the SF-12 and EQ-5D-5L to measure health-related quality of life. The utility index of the SF-6D was derived from the SF-12. We calculate correlation coefficients to evaluate the relationship and agreement of 2 instruments. To evaluate the homogeneity of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D, intraclass correlation coefficients, scatter plots, and Bland–Altman plots were computed and drawn. We also used receiver operating characteristic curves to compare the discriminative properties and sensitivity of the econometric index. A total of 1797 respondents, with a mean age of 45.6 ± 11.7 years, was interviewed. The distribution of EQ-5D-5L scores skewed towards full health with a skewness of −3.316. The overall correlation between EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D index scores was 0.46 (P < .001). The association of the 2 scales appeared stronger at the upper end. An intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.59 between the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D meant a moderate correlation and indicated general agreement. The Bland–Altman plot displayed the same results as the scatter plot. The receiver operating characteristic curve showed that the AUC for the SF-6D was 0.776 (95% CI: 0.757, 0.796) and that for the EQ-5D-5L was 0.732 (95% CI: 0.712, 0.752) by the PCS-12, and it was 0.782 (95% CI: 0.763, 0.802) for the SF-6D and 0.690 (95% CI: 0.669, 0.711) for the EQ-5D-5L by the MCS-12. Our study demonstrated evidence of the performance of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D index scores to measure health utility in people living with HIV/AIDS. There were significant differences in their performance. We preferred to apply the SF-6D to measure the health utility of PLWHIV during the combined antiretroviral therapy period. Our study has demonstrated evidence for instrument choice and preference measurements in PLWHIV under combined antiretroviral therapy.

No abstract