BackgroundStudies from sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) document how barriers to ART adherence present additional complications among adolescents and young adults living with HIV. We qualitatively explored barriers to ART adherence in Uganda among individuals age 14–24 to understand the unique challenges faced by this age group.MethodsWe conducted focus group (FG) discussions with Community Advisory Board members (n = 1), health care providers (n = 2), and male and female groups of adolescents age 14–17 (n = 2) and youth age 18–24 (n = 2) in Kampala, Uganda. FGs were transcribed verbatim and translated from Luganda into English. Two investigators independently reviewed all transcripts, developed a detailed codebook, achieved a pooled Cohen’s Kappa of 0.79 and 0.80, and used a directed content analysis to identify key themes.ResultsFour barriers to ART adherence emerged: 1) poverty limited adolescents’ ability to buy food and undercut efforts to become economically independent in their transition from adolescence to adulthood; 2) school attendance limited their privacy, further disrupting ART adherence; 3) family support was unreliable, and youth often struggled with a constant change in guardianship because they had lost their biological parents to HIV. In contrast peer influence, especially among HIV-positive youth, was strong and created an important network to support ART adherence; 4) the burden of taking multiple medications daily frustrated youth, often leading to so-called ‘drug holidays.’ Adolescent and youth-specific issues around disclosure emerged across three of the four barriers.ConclusionsTo be effective, programs and policies to improve ART adherence among youth in Uganda must address the special challenges that adolescents and young adults confront in achieving optimal adherence. For example, training on budgeting and savings practices could help promote their transition to financial independence. School staff could develop strategies to help students take their medications consistently and confidentially. While challenging to extend the range of services provided by HIV clinics, successful efforts will require engaging the family, peers, and larger community of health and educational providers to support adolescents and young adults living with HIV to live longer and healthier lives.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02514356. Registered August 3, 2015.

COVID-19 measures that restrict movement may negatively impact access to HIV care and treatment. To contribute to the currently limited evidence, we used telephone interviews with quantitative and qualitative questions to examine how clients perceived COVID-19 and its effect on their HIV care and ART adherence. One hundred (n = 100) Ugandan adults on ART from an existing study were randomly selected and enrolled. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using descriptive statistics and rapid content analyses. 76% of clients indicated that COVID-19 negatively impacted travel to HIV clinics; 54% perceived that coming to the clinic increased their risk of acquiring COVID-19; and 14% said that COVID-19 had negatively impacted their ART adherence. Qualitative feedback suggests that fear of COVID-19 infection discouraged clinic attendance while stay-at-home orders helped routinize ART adherence and employ new community-based approaches for HIV care. Addressing negative unintended consequences of COVID-19 lockdowns on HIV care is urgently needed.

Background Early childhood development (ECD) programmes can help address early disadvantages for the 43% of children younger than 5 years in low-income and middle-income countries who have compromised development. We aimed to test the effectiveness of two group-based delivery models for an integrated ECD responsive stimulation and nutrition education intervention using Kenya's network of community health volunteers. MethodsWe implemented a multi-arm, cluster-randomised community effectiveness trial in three rural subcounties across 60 villages (clusters) in western Kenya. Eligible participants were mothers or female primary caregivers aged 15 years or older with children aged 6-24 months at enrolment. If married or in established relationships, fathers or male caregivers aged 18 years or older were also eligible. Villages were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to one of three groups: group-only delivery with 16 fortnightly sessions; mixed delivery combining 12 group sessions with four home visits; and a comparison group. Villages in the intervention groups were randomly assigned (1:1) to invite or not invite fathers and male caregivers to participate. Households were surveyed at baseline and immediately postintervention. Assessors were masked. Primary outcomes were child cognitive and language development (score on the Bayley Scales of Infant Development third edition), socioemotional development (score on the Wolke scale), and parental stimulation (Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment inventory). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03548558. Findings Between Oct 1 and Nov 12, 2018, 1152 mother-child dyads were enrolled and randomly assigned (n=376 group-only intervention, n=400 mixed-delivery intervention, n=376 comparison group). At the 11-month endline survey (Aug 5-Oct 31, 2019), 1070 households were assessed for the primary outcomes (n=346 group only, n=373 mixed delivery, n=351 comparison). Children in group-only villages had higher cognitive (effect size 0•52 SD [95% CI 0•21-0•83]), receptive language (0•42 SD [0•08-0•77]), and socioemotional scores (0•23 SD [0•03-0•44]) than children in comparison villages at endline. Children in mixed-delivery villages had higher cognitive (0•34 SD [0•05-0•62]) and socioemotional scores (0•22 SD [0•05-0•38]) than children in comparison villages; there was no difference in language scores. Parental stimulation also improved for group-only (0•80 SD [0•49-1•11]) and mixeddelivery villages (0•77 SD [0•49-1•05]) compared with the villages in the comparison group. Including fathers in the intervention had no measurable effect on any of the primary outcomes. Interpretation Parenting interventions delivered by trained community health volunteers in mother-child groups can effectively promote child development in low-resource settings and have great potential for scalability.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

BackgroundIntegrated community case management (iCCM) can be an effective strategy for expanding the provision of diarrhea, pneumonia, and malaria services to children under 5 years old but there are concerns in some countries about the corresponding cost and impact. This paper presents and compares findings from a multi–country analysis of iCCM program costs.MethodsData on coverage, utilization, and costs were collected as part of two sets of studies conducted between 2011 and 2013 for iCCM programs in seven sub–Saharan African countries: Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Malawi, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Sudan and Zambia. The data were used to compare some elements of program performance as well as costs per capita and costs per service (which are key indicators of resource allocation and efficiency).ResultsAmong the seven countries, iCCM utilization ranged from a total of 0.26 to 3.05 contacts per capita (children 2–59 months) per year for the diseases treated, representing a range of 2.7% to 36.7% of the expected numbers of cases. The total recurrent cost per treatment ranged from US$ 2.44 to US$ 13.71 for diarrhea; from US$ 2.17 to US$ 17.54 for malaria (excluding rapid diagnostic testing); and from US$ 1.70 to US$ 12.94 for pneumonia. In some of the country programs, the utilization of iCCM services was quite low and this, together with significant fixed costs, particularly for management and supervision, resulted in services being quite costly. Given the differences across the countries and programs, however, these results should be treated as indicative and not definitive.ConclusionA comprehensive understanding of iCCM program costs and results can help countries obtain resources and use them efficiently. To be cost–effective and affordable, iCCM programs must be well–utilized while program management and supervision should be organized to minimize costs and ensure quality of care. iCCM programs will not always be low–cost, however, particularly in small, remote villages where supervision and supply challenges are greater. Further research is needed to determine the cost–effectiveness of iCCM programs and corresponding patient and service delivery costs.