Beverly Musick

Introduction: HIV care and treatment programs around the world continue to evolve in response to changes in clinical guidelines, evidence-based practices, domestic and donor funding for the HIV response, new technological developments, and changing weather patterns. Since 2009, the International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) research consortium has conducted periodic surveys to document the characteristics of participating clinics and the availability of HIV-related services across diverse settings—information that provides important context for understanding variations and trends in HIV care outcomes. This paper describes the protocol for IeDEA’s 2026 site assessment survey, launched in August 2026. Methods and analysis: This cross-sectional descriptive study aims to document HIV-related services and practices among clinics in 42 countries. The survey explores the characteristics and services provided at HIV care and treatment sites participating in IeDEA in 2026, along with real-world adoption and implementation of evidence-based service delivery strategies for people living with or at risk of HIV. Designed for self-administration, the survey questionnaire was developed through two complementary processes: a review of questions and data collected through IeDEA’s prior consortium-wide surveys and an open call to IeDEA investigators for new survey content to advance a timely implementation science agenda relevant to the global HIV community. Survey materials and links to an online REDCap questionnaire will be distributed to 235 eligible clinics across IeDEA in September 2026, with a deadline of November 30, 2026, for completion. Planned analyses will examine the following topics: HIV care amidst funding constraints; the roll-out of differentiated service delivery models; pre-exposure HIV prophylaxis; long-acting injectable antiretroviral therapy (ART); prevention, screening and/or treatment services for viral hepatitis, mental health and substance use disorders, cardiovascular disease, and cancers among PLHIV; the integration of HIV care with other health services; and clinic vulnerability to extreme weather events. Ethics and dissemination: A “non-human subjects” research designation was determined by the Vanderbilt University Medical Center Human Research Protections Program. Survey findings will be shared with local partners and stakeholders across IeDEA, disseminated at regional and global conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals. Strengths and limitations of this study: Strengths of this study include gathering data for a global cohort of 235 HIV clinics across 42 low-, middle- and high-income countries, reflecting real-world adoption and implementation of treatment guidelines and evidence-based practices for HIV prevention, care and management across diverse settings during a period of substantial changes in funding for the HIV response. Further strengths include a rigorous process for survey development that combined an in-depth review of data and findings from prior International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) surveys with new investigator-driven content focused on implementation science questions related to the HIV response and key gaps in the literature. Study limitations include potential recall and social desirability biases inherent in self-reported data, as well as selection biases that may determine clinic participation. Additionally, while clinics participating in the global IeDEA research consortium are reflective of real-world HIV care delivery, they may not be nationally or regionally representative.

PURPOSE: To achieve the WHO cervical cancer elimination targets, countries globally must achieve 70% cervical cancer screening (CCS) coverage. We evaluated CCS uptake and predictors of screening positive at two public HIV care programs in western Kenya. METHODS: From October 2007 to February 2019, data from the Family AIDS Care and Education Services (FACES) and Academic Model Providing Access to Healthcare (AMPATH) programs in western Kenya were analyzed. The study population included women age 18-65 years enrolled in HIV care. Screening uptake was calculated annually and overall, determining the proportion of eligible women screened. Multivariate logistic regression assessed predictors of positive screening outcomes. RESULTS: There were 57,298 women living with HIV (WLWHIV) eligible for CCS across both programs during the study period. The mean age was 31.4 years (IQR, 25.9-37.8), and 39% were on antiretroviral therapy (ART) at the first CCS-eligible visit. Of all eligible women, 29.4% (95% CI, 29.1 to 29.8) underwent CCS during the study period, 27.0% (95% CI, 26.5 to 27.4) in the AMPATH program, and 35.6% (95% CI, 34.9 to 36.4) in the FACES program. Annual screening uptake varied greatly in both programs, with coverage as low as 1% of eligible WLWHIV during specific years. Age at first screening, CD4 count within 90 days of screening, current use of ART, and program (AMPATH v FACES) were each statistically significant predictors of positive screening. CONCLUSION: CCS uptake at two large HIV care programs in Kenya fell short of the WHO's 70% screening target. Screening rates varied significantly on the basis of the availability of funding specific to CCS, reflecting the limitations of vertical funding programs.

Differentiated care delivery aims to simplify care of people living with HIV, reflect their preferences, reduce burdens on the healthcare system, maintain care quality and preserve resources. However, assessing program effectiveness using observational data is difficult due to confounding by indication and randomized trials may be infeasible. Also, benefits can reach patients directly, through enrollment in the program, and indirectly, by increasing quality of and accessibility to care. Low-risk express care (LREC), the program under evaluation, is a nurse-centered model which assigns patients stable on ART to a nurse every two months and a clinician every third visit, reducing annual clinician visits by two thirds. Study population is comprised of 16,832 subjects from 15 clinics in Kenya. We focus on patient retention in care based on whether the LREC program is available at a clinic and whether the patient is enrolled in LREC. We use G-estimation to assess the effect on retention of two “strategies”: (i) program availability but no enrollment; (ii) enrollment at an available program; versus no program availability. Compared to no availability, LREC results in a non-significant increase in patient retention, among patients not enrolled in the program (indirect effect), while enrollment in LREC is associated with a significant extension of the time retained in care (direct effect). G-estimation provides an analytical framework useful to the assessment of similar programs using observational data.

Although an estimated 1.4 million women living with HIV (WHIV) are pregnant each year globally, data describing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on postpartum women in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are limited. To address this gap, we conducted phone surveys among 170 WHIV ≥18 years and 18–24 months postpartum enrolled in HIV care at the Academic Model Providing Access to Healthcare in western Kenya, and assessed the effects of the pandemic across health, social and economic domains. We found that 47% of WHIV experienced income loss and 71% experienced food insecurity during the pandemic. The majority (96%) of women reported having adequate access to antiretroviral treatment and only 3% reported difficulties refilling medications, suggesting that the program’s strategies to maintain HIV service delivery during the early phase of the pandemic were effective. However, 21% of WHIV screened positive for depression and 8% for anxiety disorder, indicating the need for interventions to address the mental health needs of this population. Given the scale and duration of the pandemic, HIV programs in LMICs should work with governments and non-governmental organizations to provide targeted support to WHIV at highest risk of food and income insecurity and their associated adverse health outcomes.

Introduction: Timely descriptions of HIV service characteristics and their evolution over time across diverse settings are important for monitoring the scale-up of evidence-based program strategies, understanding the implementation landscape, and examining service delivery factors that influence HIV care outcomes. Methods: The International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) consortium undertakes periodic cross-sectional surveys on service availability and care at participating HIV treatment sites to characterize trends and inform the scientific agenda for HIV care and implementation science communities. IeDEA’s 2020 general site assessment survey was developed through a consultative, 18-month process that engaged diverse researchers in identifying content from previous surveys that should be retained for longitudinal analyses and in developing expanded and new content to address gaps in the literature. An iterative review process was undertaken to standardize the format of new survey questions and align them with best practices in survey design and measurement and lessons learned through prior IeDEA site assessment surveys. Results: The survey questionnaire developed through this process included eight content domains covered in prior surveys (patient population, staffing and community linkages, HIV testing and diagnosis, new patient care, treatment monitoring and retention, routine HIV care and screening, pharmacy, record-keeping and patient tracing), along with expanded content related to antiretroviral therapy (differentiated service delivery and roll-out of dolutegravir-based regimens); mental health and substance use disorders; care for pregnant/postpartum women and HIV-exposed infants; tuberculosis preventive therapy; and pediatric/adolescent tuberculosis care; and new content related to Kaposi’s sarcoma diagnostics, the impact of COVID-19 on service delivery, and structural barriers to HIV care. The survey was distributed to 238 HIV treatment sites in late 2020, with a 95% response rate. Conclusion: IeDEA’s approach for site survey development has broad relevance for HIV research networks and other priority health conditions.

Background: Although 1·3 million women with HIV give birth annually, care and outcomes for HIV-exposed infants remain incompletely understood. We analyzed programmatic and health indicators in a large, multidecade global dataset of linked mother–infant records from clinics and programs associated with the International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) consortium. Methods and findings: HIV-exposed infants were eligible for this retrospective cohort analysis if enrolled at <18 months at 198 clinics in 10 countries across 5 IeDEA regions: East Africa (EA), Central Africa (CA), West Africa (WA), Southern Africa (SA), and the Caribbean, Central, and South America network (CCASAnet). We estimated cumulative incidences of DNA PCR testing, loss to follow-up (LTFU), HIV diagnosis, and death through 24 months of age using proportional subdistribution hazard models accounting for competing risks. Competing risks were transfer, care withdrawal, and confirmation of negative HIV status, along with LTFU and death, when not the outcome of interest. In CA and EA, we quantified associations between maternal/infant characteristics and each outcome. A total of 82,067 infants (47,300 EA, 10,699 CA, 6,503 WA, 15,770 SA, 1,795 CCASAnet) born from 1997 to 2021 were included. Maternal antiretroviral therapy (ART) use during pregnancy ranged from 65·6% (CCASAnet) to 89·5% (EA), with improvements in all regions over time. Twenty-four-month cumulative incidences varied widely across regions, ranging from 12·3% (95% confidence limit [CL], 11·2%,13·5%) in WA to 94·8% (95% CL, 94·6%,95·1%) in EA for DNA PCR testing; 56·2% (95% CL, 55·2%,57·1%) in EA to 98·5% (95% CL, 98·3%,98·7%) in WA for LTFU; 1·9% (95% CL, 1·6%,2·3%) in WA to 10·3% (95% CL, 9·7%,10·9%) in EA for HIV diagnosis; and 0·5% (95% CL, 0·2%,1·0%) in CCASAnet to 4·7% (95% CL, 4·4%,5·0%) in EA for death. Although infant retention did not improve, HIV diagnosis and death decreased over time, and in EA, the cumulative incidence of HIV diagnosis decreased substantially, declining to 2·9% (95% CL, 1·5%,5·4%) in 2020. Maternal ART was associated with decreased infant mortality (subdistribution hazard ratio [sdHR], 0·65; 95% CL, 0·47,0·91 in EA, and sdHR, 0·51; 95% CL, 0·36,0·74 in CA) and HIV diagnosis (sdHR, 0·40; 95% CL, 0·31,0·50 in EA, and sdHR, 0·41; 95% CL, 0·31,0·54 in CA). Study limitations include potential misclassification of outcomes in real-world service delivery data and possible nonrepresentativeness of IeDEA sites and the population of HIV-exposed infants they serve. Conclusions: While there was marked regional and temporal heterogeneity in clinical and programmatic outcomes, infant LTFU was high across all regions and time periods. Further efforts are needed to keep HIV-exposed infants in care to receive essential services to reduce HIV infection and mortality.

Introduction Timely descriptions of HIV service characteristics and their evolution over time across diverse settings are important for monitoring the scale-up of evidence-based program strategies, understanding the implementation landscape, and examining service delivery factors that influence HIV care outcomes. Methods The International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) consortium undertakes periodic cross-sectional surveys on service availability and care at participating HIV treatment sites to characterize trends and inform the scientific agenda for HIV care and implementation science communities. IeDEA’s 2020 general site assessment survey was developed through a consultative, 18-month process that engaged diverse researchers in identifying content from previous surveys that should be retained for longitudinal analyses and in developing expanded and new content to address gaps in the literature. An iterative review process was undertaken to standardize the format of new survey questions and align them with best practices in survey design and measurement and lessons learned through prior IeDEA site assessment surveys. Results The survey questionnaire developed through this process included eight content domains covered in prior surveys (patient population, staffing and community linkages, HIV testing and diagnosis, new patient care, treatment monitoring and retention, routine HIV care and screening, pharmacy, record-keeping and patient tracing), along with expanded content related to antiretroviral therapy (differentiated service delivery and roll-out of dolutegravir-based regimens); mental health and substance use disorders; care for pregnant/postpartum women and HIV-exposed infants; tuberculosis preventive therapy; and pediatric/adolescent tuberculosis care; and new content related to Kaposi’s sarcoma diagnostics, the impact of COVID-19 on service delivery, and structural barriers to HIV care. The survey was distributed to 238 HIV treatment sites in late 2020, with a 95% response rate. Conclusion IeDEA’s approach for site survey development approach has broad relevance for HIV research networks and other priority health conditions.