Task shifting from doctors to non-doctors for initiation and maintenance of antiretroviral therapy

Abstract

Background: The high levels of healthcare worker shortage is recognised as a severe impediment to increasing patients' access to antiretroviral therapy. This is particularly of concern where the burden of disease is greatest and the access to trained doctors is limited.This review aims to better inform HIV care programmes that are currently underway, and those planned, by assessing if task-shifting care from doctors to non-doctors provides both high quality and safe care for all patients requiring antiretroviral treatment.

Objectives: To evaluate the quality of initiation and maintenance of HIV/AIDS care in models that task shift care from doctors to non-doctors.

Search methods: We conducted a comprehensive search to identify all relevant studies regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press, and in progress) from 1 January 1996 to 28 March 2014, with major HIV/AIDS conferences searched 23 May 2014. We had also contacted relevant organizations and researchers. Key words included MeSH terms and free-text terms relevant to 'task shifting', 'skill mix', 'integration of tasks', 'service delivery' and 'health services accessibility'.

Selection criteria: We included controlled trials (randomised or non-randomised), controlled-before and after studies, and cohort studies (prospective or retrospective) comparing doctor-led antiretroviral therapy delivery to delivery that included another cadre of health worker other than a doctor, for initiating treatment, continuing treatment, or both, in HIV infected patients.

Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and descriptor terms of the results of the electronic search and applied our eligibility criteria using a standardized eligibility form to full texts of potentially eligible or uncertain abstracts. Two reviewers independently extracted data on standardized data extraction forms. Where possible, data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. We assessed evidence quality with GRADE methodology.

Main results: Ten studies met our inclusion criteria, all of which were conducted in Africa. Of these four were randomised controlled trials while the remaining six were cohort studies.From the trial data, when nurses initiated and provided follow-up HIV therapy, there was high quality evidence of no difference in death at one year, unadjusted risk ratio was 0.96 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.12), one trial, cluster adjusted n = 2770. There was moderate quality evidence of lower rates of losses to follow-up at one year, relative risk of 0.73 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.97). From the cohort data, there was low quality evidence that there may be an increased risk of death in the task shifting group, relative risk 1.23 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.33, two cohorts, n = 39 160) and very low quality data reporting no difference in patients lost to follow-up between groups, relative risk 0.30 (95% CI 0.05 to 1.94).From the trial data, when doctors initiated therapy and nurses provided follow-up, there was moderate quality evidence that there is probably no difference in death compared with doctor-led care at one year, relative risk of 0.89 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.32), two trials, cluster adjusted n = 4332. There was moderate quality evidence that there is probably no difference in the numbers of patients lost to follow-up at one year, relative risk 1.27 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.77), P = 0.15. From the cohort data, there is very low quality data that death at one year may be lower in the task shifting group, relative risk 0.19 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.78), one cohort, n = 2772, and very low quality evidence that loss to follow-up was reduced, relative risk 0.34 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.66).From the trial data, for maintenance therapy delivered in the community there was moderate quality evidence that there is probably no difference in mortality when doctors deliver care in the hospital or specially trained field workers provide home-based maintenance care and antiretroviral therapy at one year, relative risk 1.0 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.62), 1 trial, cluster adjusted n = 559. There is moderate quality evidence from this trial that losses to follow-up are probably no different at one year, relative risk 0.52 (0.12 to 2.3), P = 0.39. The cohort studies did not report on one year follow-up for these outcomes.Across the studies that reported on virological and immunological outcomes, there was no clear evidence of difference whether a doctor or nurse or clinical officer delivered therapy. Three studies report on costs to patients, indicating a reduction in travel costs to treatment facilities where task shifting was occurring closer to patients homes. There is conflicting evidence regarding the relative cost to the health system, as implementation of the strategy may increase costs. The two studies reporting the patient and staff perceptions of the quality of care, report good acceptability of the service by patients, and general acceptance by doctors of the shifting of roles. One trial reported on the time to initiation of antiretroviral therapy, finding no clear evidence of a difference between groups. The same trial reports on new diagnosis of tuberculosis which favours nurse initiation of HIV care for increasing the numbers of diagnoses of tuberculosis made.

Authors' conclusions: Our review found moderate quality evidence that shifting responsibility from doctors to adequately trained and supported nurses or community health workers for managing HIV patients probably does not decrease the quality of care and, in the case of nurse initiated care, may decrease the numbers of patients lost to follow-up.

1

Study flow diagram.

2

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

3

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Doctor versus nurse or clinical officer (initiation and Maintenance of ART)  , outcome: 1.1 Death (12 months).

4

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Doctor versus nurse or clinical officer (initiation and Maintenance of ART)  , outcome: 1.2 Lost to follow‐up (12 months).

5

Forest plot of comparison: 2 Doctor versus nurse or clinical officer (Maintenance of ART), outcome: 2.1 Death (12 months).

6

Forest plot of comparison: 2 Doctor versus nurse or clinical officer (Maintenance of ART), outcome: 2.2 Lost to follow‐up (12 months).

7

Forest plot of comparison: 3 Doctor versus community health worker, outcome: 3.1 Death (12 months).

8

Forest plot of comparison: 3 Doctor versus community health worker, outcome: 3.2 Lost to follow‐up (12 months).

1.1. Analysis

Comparison 1 Doctor versus nurse or clinical officer (initiation and Maintenance of ART)  , Outcome 1 Death (12 months).

1.2. Analysis

Comparison 1 Doctor versus nurse or clinical officer (initiation and Maintenance of ART)  , Outcome 2 Lost to follow‐up (12 months).

1.3. Analysis

Comparison 1 Doctor versus nurse or clinical officer (initiation and Maintenance of ART)  , Outcome 3 Death or lost to follow‐up (12months).

2.1. Analysis

Comparison 2 Doctor versus nurse or clinical officer (Maintenance of ART), Outcome 1 Death (12 months).

2.2. Analysis

Comparison 2 Doctor versus nurse or clinical officer (Maintenance of ART), Outcome 2 Lost to follow‐up (12 months).

2.3. Analysis

Comparison 2 Doctor versus nurse or clinical officer (Maintenance of ART), Outcome 3 Death or lost to follow‐up (12 months).

3.1. Analysis

Comparison 3 Doctor versus community health worker, Outcome 1 Death (12 months).

3.2. Analysis

Comparison 3 Doctor versus community health worker, Outcome 2 Lost to follow‐up (12 months).

3.3. Analysis

Comparison 3 Doctor versus community health worker, Outcome 3 Death or lost to follow‐up (12 months).