Search

Current international targets aim for 90% of people diagnosed with HIV to be on antiretroviral treatment (ART). This paper aims to identify sociodemographic and attitudinal factors associated with ART non-use over time in three samples of Australian people living with HIV (PLHIV). Data for this paper were derived from an Australian cross-sectional survey of PLHIV that was repeated at three different time points: 1997, 2003, and 2012. There were approximately 1000 respondents to each survey (n = 3042 in total). The survey included approximately 250 items related broadly to health and well-being, ART use, and attitudes towards ART use. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used. While the proportion of participants using ART increased between 1997 and 2012 (78.8–87.6%,p < .001), there was a decrease between 1997 and 2003 to 70.6% (p < .001). Factors linked to ART non-use remained steady over those 15 years. In all cohorts, people less likely to be using ART were younger and had a more recent diagnosis of HIV. In 2003 and 2012, people in full-time employment were less likely to be using ART, while those whose main source of income was a pension or social security were more likely to be using ART. Multivariate models showed that, at each time point, a belief in the health benefits of delayed ART uptake was associated with non-use. These findings suggest that there may be barriers to ART uptake that have persisted over time despite changes to clinical guidelines that now encourage early uptake. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper explores which measures of health accurately reflect the functional capabilities of individuals -- that is, in what measures of health do those classified as having poorer health actually have poorer functional outcomes. Using the 2003 Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers, cross-tabulations, chi-squared analysis, and logistic regression models were used to identify the relationship between functional outcomes (core activity limitations and employment and education participation) and various measures of health and disability (composite disability measure, health utility scores and general health assessment). Both the composite disability measure and the health utility score accurately capture individual functional capacity -- with both measures being related to employment participation, employment and education restrictions, and core activity imitations. The health utility scores can also be divided into a categorical measure and still reflect this functional capacity. The general health assessment measure is also related to functional capacity and can potentially be used in the place of both the composite disability measure and the health utility score. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]