Skip to main content
Clinical Trials/NCT05404958
NCT05404958RecruitingNot Applicable

Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach to Improve Integration of HIV Prevention and Treatment Services

University of Washington1 site in 1 country40 target enrollmentStarted: March 14, 2024Last updated:
Conditions
Interventions

Trial Snapshot

Phase
Not Applicable
Status
Recruiting
Enrollment
40
Locations
1
Primary Endpoint
Effectiveness Linked to HIV care

Study Overview

Brief Summary

East and Southern Africa is home to 6.2% of the world's population but includes 54% of all people living with HIV (PLWH). In this region, three out of five PLWH are women, and there is a particularly high burden of HIV amongst adolescent girls and young women (AGYW). Over half of African women use family planning (FP) services. Integration of HIV prevention and treatment with FP services holds promise for supporting progress toward the UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets for testing, treatment, and prevention. Nonetheless, integration of even basic HIV prevention and treatment services into FP clinics remains low and how best to integrate these services is still unknown. In a previous trial, the Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach (SAIA), was an effective implementation strategy for improving HIV counseling and testing in a small selection of FP clinics in Mombasa County, Kenya when delivered by research staff. SAIA incorporates a cascade analysis tool, sequential process flow mapping, and cycles of micro-intervention development, implementation, and assessment to improve a care cascade. More data is needed to understand if SAIA is effective for also improving linkage to HIV care and screening and linkage to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in FP clinics when SAIA is delivered at scale by Kenyan public health workforce. The first objective of this study is to conduct a cluster-randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of SAIA versus control (usual procedures with no specific intervention) for increasing HIV counseling, testing, linkage to HIV care, and screening and linkage to PrEP in new FP clients and new and returning AGYW clients. There will be a particular focus on the HIV prevention and treatment of AGYW in this study and any AGYW presenting for FP care will be prioritized. Quantitative and qualitative data will be analyzed using the RE-AIM framework to evaluate the program's Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance. To understand how SAIA could be integrated into national Ministry of Health policies and programs, activity-based costing will be conducted to estimate the budget and program impacts of SAIA, scaled to a County level, from a Ministry of Health perspective. It is hypothesized that compared to control, SAIA will be effective at increasing HIV counseling, HIV testing, linkage to HIV care, and screening and linkage to PrEP for new FP clients and all new and returning AGYW FP clients when delivered at scale by Kenyan public health staff. The implementation evaluation, costing, and budget impact analysis will establish a road map for national-level implementation, positioning Kenya as a global leader in integrating FP/HIV services.

Detailed Description

AIM 1: To conduct a cluster-randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of SAIA versus control (usual procedures) for increasing HIV counseling, testing, linkage to care, and screening and linkage to PrEP in new FP clients and new and returning AGYW clients. Quantitative and qualitative data will be analyzed using the RE-AIM framework (21).

1a) Reach: Proportion of intervention arm health facility clients' reached with the intervention

1b) Effectiveness: Compare the effectiveness of SAIA vs. control for increasing rates of HIV counseling, testing, linkage to care, and screening and linkage to PrEP in new FP clients and new and returning AGYW clients

1c) Adoption: Proportion of clinics adopting SAIA; adoption determinants identified using the Implementation Research Logic Model (IRLM) (22) and Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) scale (23)

1d) Implementation: Proportion of FP clinics implementing SAIA with high fidelity at 12 months and at 24 months; barriers and facilitators of implementation at scale by County DOH personnel will be explored using constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the IRLM (24)

Study Design

Study Type
Interventional
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention Model
Parallel
Primary Purpose
Other
Masking
None

Eligibility Criteria

Sex
All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Yes

Inclusion Criteria

  • FP clinics:
  • All FP clinics that receive County-supplied FP products will be eligible to participate.
  • FP clinic managers and staff:
  • Any FP clinic manager that is 18 years and older is eligible to be interviewed. -These clinic managers can be male or female.
  • Kenyan public health staff:
  • Any Kenyan public health staff that is 18 years and older is eligible to be interviewed.
  • These public health staff can be male or female.

Exclusion Criteria

  • FP clinics:
  • Any clinics that are expected to close within the next year at the time of study initiation
  • 12 facilities that participated as SAIA intervention facilities in our small-scale trial where the intervention was led by research staff.
  • FP clinic managers and staff: No exclusion criteria Kenyan public health staff: No exclusion criteria

Arms & Interventions

Usual procedures

No Intervention

Intervention clinics that implement the Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach

Experimental

Mombasa County public health staff will facilitate SAIA

Intervention: Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach (SAIA) (Other)

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Effectiveness Linked to HIV care

Time Frame: Months 1-24

Proportion of HIV-seropositive new FP clients and all HIV-seropositive AGYW clients linked to comprehensive HIV care out of all HIV-seropositive new FP clients and all HIV-seropositive AGYW clients in intervention vs control clinics

Effectiveness HIV counseling

Time Frame: Months 1-24

Proportion of new FP clients and all AGYW clients that are counseled for HIV out of the total new FP clients and AGYW in intervention vs control clinics

Effectiveness HIV testing

Time Frame: Months 1-24

Proportion of new FP clients and all AGYW tested for HIV out of the total new FP clients and all AGYW who are eligible to be tested in intervention vs control clinics

Effectiveness HIV testing

Time Frame: Months 1-24

Proportion of new FP clients and all AGYW tested for HIV out of the total new FP clients and all AGYW who are eligible to be tested in intervention vs control clinics

Effectiveness HIV counseling

Time Frame: Months 1-24

Proportion of new FP clients and all AGYW clients that are counseled for HIV out of the total new FP clients and AGYW in intervention vs control clinics

Effectiveness Linked to HIV care

Time Frame: Months 1-24

Proportion of HIV-seropositive new FP clients and all HIV-seropositive AGYW clients linked to comprehensive HIV care out of all HIV-seropositive new FP clients and all HIV-seropositive AGYW clients in intervention vs control clinics

Effectiveness Screening for PrEP

Time Frame: Months 1-24

1\. Proportion of new FP clients and all AGYW clients screened for PrEP out of all new FP clients and all AGYW clients who were counseled for HIV in intervention vs control clinics

Effectiveness linkage to PrEP

Time Frame: 1-24 months

Proportion of new FP clients and all AGYW clients who are eligible for PrEP who are linked to PrEP out of all new FP clients and all AGYW who are eligible for PrEP in intervention vs control clinics

Secondary Outcomes

No secondary outcomes reported

Investigators

Sponsor Class
Other
Responsible Party
Principal Investigator
Principal Investigator

McKenna Eastment

Assistant Professor: Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy & Infectious Diseases

University of Washington

Study Sites (1)

Loading locations...

Similar Trials