METHODS: A cross-sectional standardised survey was completed in 2014-2015 by sites providing paediatric HIV care across regions of the International Epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) consortium. We developed a comprehensiveness score based on the WHO's nine categories of essential services to categorise sites as 'low' (0-5), 'medium', (6-7) or 'high' (8-9). When available, comprehensiveness scores were compared with scores from a 2009 survey. We used patient-level data with site services to investigate the relationship between the comprehensiveness of services and retention.
RESULTS: Survey data from 174 IeDEA sites in 32 countries were analysed. Of the WHO essential services, sites were most likely to offer antiretroviral therapy (ART) provision and counselling (n=173; 99%), co-trimoxazole prophylaxis (168; 97%), prevention of perinatal transmission services (167; 96%), outreach for patient engagement and follow-up (166; 95%), CD4 cell count testing (126; 88%), tuberculosis screening (151; 87%) and select immunisation services (126; 72%). Sites were less likely to offer nutrition/food support (97; 56%), viral load testing (99; 69%) and HIV counselling and testing (69; 40%). 10% of sites rated 'low', 59% 'medium' and 31% 'high' in the comprehensiveness score. The mean comprehensiveness of services score increased significantly from 5.6 in 2009 to 7.3 in 2014 (p<0.001; n=30). Patient-level analysis of lost to follow-up after ART initiation estimated the hazard was highest in sites rated 'low' and lowest in sites rated 'high'.
CONCLUSION: This global assessment suggests the potential care impact of scaling-up and sustaining comprehensive paediatric HIV services. Meeting recommendations for comprehensive HIV services should remain a global priority.
METHODS: This multi-center, cross-sectional web-based questionnaire survey was conducted on HCWs during the outbreak of COVID-19 from August 2020 to January 2021. HCWs working in hospitals from 48 different countries were invited to participate in an online anonymous survey that investigated sociodemographic data, psychological distress, burnout and structural empowerment (SE) based on Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale 21 (DASS-21), Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and Conditions for work effectiveness questionnaire (CWEQ_II), respectively. Predictors of the total scores of DASS-21, MBI and CWEQ-II were assessed using unadjusted and adjusted binary logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: Out of the 1030 HCWs enrolled in this survey, all completed the sociodemographic section (response rate 100%) A total of 730 (70.9%) HCWs completed the DASS-21 questionnaire, 852 (82.6%) completed the MBI questionnaire, and 712 (69.1%) completed the CWEQ-II questionnaire. The results indicate that 360 out of 730 responders (49.3%) reported severe or extremely severe levels of stress, anxiety, and depression. Additionally, 422 out of 851 responders (49.6%) reported a high level of burnout, while 268 out of 712 responders (37.6%) reported a high level of structural empowerment based on the DASS-21, MBI, and CWEQ-II scales, respectively. In addition, the analysis showed that HCWs working in the COVID-19 areas experienced significantly higher symptoms of severe stress, anxiety, depression and higher levels of burnout compared to those working in other areas. The results also revealed that direct work with COVID-19 patients, lower work experience, and high workload during the outbreak of COVID-19 increase the risks of negative psychological consequences.
CONCLUSION: Health professionals had high levels of burnout and psychological symptoms during the COVID-19 emergency. Monitoring and timely treatment of these conditions is needed.