학술논문

Estimating the Prevalence of over- and Under-Reporting in HIV Testing, Status and Treatment in Rural Northeast South Africa: A Comparison of a Survey and Clinic Records
Document Type
article
Source
AIDS and Behavior. 27(10)
Subject
Public Health
Health Sciences
Pediatric AIDS
Clinical Research
Infectious Diseases
Behavioral and Social Science
Pediatric
HIV/AIDS
Infection
Good Health and Well Being
Adult
Male
Humans
Female
Adolescent
Young Adult
Middle Aged
HIV Infections
South Africa
Prevalence
Surveys and Questionnaires
HIV Testing
HIV testing
survey research
self-reported measures
Public Health and Health Services
Social Work
Public health
Language
Abstract
We assess the accuracy of self-reported testing, HIV status, and treatment responses compared to clinical records in Ehlanzeni District, South Africa. We linked a 2018 population-based survey of adults 18-49 years old with clinical data at local primary healthcare facilities from 2014 to 2018. We calculated self-reported testing, HIV status, and treatment, and triangulated findings with clinic record data. We adjusted testing estimates for known gaps in HIV test documentation. Of 2089 survey participants, 1657 used a study facility and were eligible for analysis. Half of men and 84% of women reported an HIV test in the past year. One third of reported tests could be confirmed in clinic data within 1 year and an additional 13% within 2 years; these fractions increased to 57% and 22% respectively limiting to participants with a verified clinic file. After accounting for gaps in clinic documentation, we found that prevalence of recent HIV testing was closer to 15% among men and 51% in women. Estimated prevalence of known HIV was 16.2% based on self-report vs. 27.6% with clinic documentation. Relative to clinical records among confirmed clinic users, self report of HIV testing and of current treatment were highly sensitive but non-specific (sensitivity 95.5% and 98.8%, specificity 24.2% and 16.1% respectively), while self report of HIV status was highly specific but not sensitive (sensitivity 53.0%, specificity 99.3%). While clinical records are imperfect, survey-based measures should be interpreted with caution in this rural South African setting.