IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1002183.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient-Reported Barriers to Adherence to Antiretroviral Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Zara Shubber
  • Edward J Mills
  • Jean B Nachega
  • Rachel Vreeman
  • Marcelo Freitas
  • Peter Bock
  • Sabin Nsanzimana
  • Martina Penazzato
  • Tsitsi Appolo
  • Meg Doherty
  • Nathan Ford

Abstract

Background: Maintaining high levels of adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) is a challenge across settings and populations. Understanding the relative importance of different barriers to adherence will help inform the targeting of different interventions and future research priorities. Methods and Findings: We searched MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and PsychINFO from 01 January 1997 to 31 March 2016 for studies reporting barriers to adherence to ART. We calculated pooled proportions of reported barriers to adherence per age group (adults, adolescents, and children). We included data from 125 studies that provided information about adherence barriers for 17,061 adults, 1,099 children, and 856 adolescents. We assessed differences according to geographical location and level of economic development. The most frequently reported individual barriers included forgetting (adults 41.4%, 95% CI 37.3%–45.4%; adolescents 63.1%, 95% CI 46.3%–80.0%; children/caregivers 29.2%, 95% CI 20.1%–38.4%), being away from home (adults 30.4%, 95% CI 25.5%–35.2%; adolescents 40.7%, 95% CI 25.7%–55.6%; children/caregivers 18.5%, 95% CI 10.3%–26.8%), and a change to daily routine (adults 28.0%, 95% CI 20.9%–35.0%; adolescents 32.4%, 95% CI 0%–75.0%; children/caregivers 26.3%, 95% CI 15.3%–37.4%). Depression was reported as a barrier to adherence by more than 15% of patients across all age categories (adults 15.5%, 95% CI 12.8%–18.3%; adolescents 25.7%, 95% CI 17.7%–33.6%; children 15.1%, 95% CI 3.9%–26.3%), while alcohol/substance misuse was commonly reported by adults (12.9%, 95% CI 9.7%–16.1%) and adolescents (28.8%, 95% CI 11.8%–45.8%). Secrecy/stigma was a commonly cited barrier to adherence, reported by more than 10% of adults and children across all regions (adults 13.6%, 95% CI 11.9%–15.3%; children/caregivers 22.3%, 95% CI 10.2%–34.5%). Among adults, feeling sick (15.9%, 95% CI 13.0%–18.8%) was a more commonly cited barrier to adherence than feeling well (9.3%, 95% CI 7.2%–11.4%). Health service–related barriers, including distance to clinic (adults 17.5%, 95% CI 13.0%–21.9%) and stock outs (adults 16.1%, 95% CI 11.7%–20.4%), were also frequently reported. Limitations of this review relate to the fact that included studies differed in approaches to assessing adherence barriers and included variable durations of follow up. Studies that report self-reported adherence will likely underestimate the frequency of non-adherence. For children, barriers were mainly reported by caregivers, which may not correspond to the most important barriers faced by children. Conclusions: Patients on ART face multiple barriers to adherence, and no single intervention will be sufficient to ensure that high levels of adherence to treatment and virological suppression are sustained. For maximum efficacy, health providers should consider a more triaged approach that first identifies patients at risk of poor adherence and then seeks to establish the support that is needed to overcome the most important barriers to adherence. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, Nathan Ford and colleagues assess the most frequently reported barriers by patients experiencing challenges adhering to antiretroviral therapy.Why Was This Study Done?: What Did the Researchers Do and Find?: What Do These Findings Mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Zara Shubber & Edward J Mills & Jean B Nachega & Rachel Vreeman & Marcelo Freitas & Peter Bock & Sabin Nsanzimana & Martina Penazzato & Tsitsi Appolo & Meg Doherty & Nathan Ford, 2016. "Patient-Reported Barriers to Adherence to Antiretroviral Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002183
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002183
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002183
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002183&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002183?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002183. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.