Multiple factors make adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) a complex process. This study aims to describe the barriers and facilitators to adherence for patients receiving first-line and second-line ART, identify different adherence strategies utilized and make recommendations for an improved adherence strategy. This mixed method parallel convergent study will be conducted in seven high volume public health facilities in Gauteng and one in Limpopo province in South Africa. The study consists of four phases; a retrospective secondary data analysis of a large cohort of patients on ART (using TIER.Net, an ART patient and data management system for recording and monitoring patients on ART and tuberculosis (TB)) from seven Johannesburg inner-city public health facilities (Gauteng province); a secondary data analysis of the Intensified Treatment Monitoring Accumulation (ITREMA) trial (a randomized control trial which ran from June 2015 to January 2019) conducted at the Ndlovu Medical Center (Limpopo province); in-depth interviews with people living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (PLHIV) who are taking ART (in both urban and rural settings); and a systematic review of the impact of treatment adherence interventions for chronic conditions in sub-Saharan Africa. Data will be collected on demographics, socio-economic status, treatment support, retention in care status, disclosure, stigma, clinical markers (CD4 count and viral load (VL)), self-reported adherence information, intrapersonal, and interpersonal factors, community networks, and policy level factors. The systematic review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) reporting and Population, Interventions, Comparisons and Outcomes (PICO) criteria. Analyses will involve tests of association (Chi-square and t-test), thematic analysis (deductive and inductive approaches) and network meta-analysis. Using an integrated multilevel socio-ecological framework this study will describe the factors associated with adherence for PLHIV who are taking first-line or second-line ART. Implementing evidence-based adherence approaches, when taken up, will improve patient’s overall health outcomes. Our study results will provide guidance regarding context-specific intervention strategies to improve ART adherence.

BackgroundCOVID-19 mitigation measures intend to protect public health, but their adverse psychological, social, and economic effects weaken public support. Less favorable trade-offs may especially weaken support for more restrictive measures. Support for mitigation measures may also differ between population subgroups who experience different benefits and costs, and decrease over time, a phenomenon termed “pandemic fatigue.”MethodsWe examined self-reported support for COVID-19 mitigation measures in the Netherlands over 12 consecutives waves of data collection between April 2020 and May 2021 in an open population cohort study. Participants were recruited through community panels of the 25 regional public health services, and through links to the online surveys advertised on social media. The 54,010 unique participants in the cohort study on average participated in 4 waves of data collection. Most participants were female (65%), middle-aged [57% (40–69 years)], highly educated (57%), not living alone (84%), residing in an urban area (60%), and born in the Netherlands (95%).ResultsCOVID-19 mitigation measures implemented in the Netherlands remained generally well-supported over time [all scores >3 on 5-point scale ranging 1 (low)−5 (high)]. During the whole period studied, support was highest for personal hygiene measures, quarantine and wearing face masks, high but somewhat lower for not shaking hands, testing and self-isolation, and restricting social contacts, and lowest for limiting visitors at home, and not traveling abroad. Women and higher educated people were more supportive of some mitigation measures than men and lower educated people. Older people were more supportive of more restrictive measures than younger people, and support for more socially restrictive measures decreased most over time in higher educated people or in younger people.ConclusionsThis study found no support for pandemic fatigue in terms of a gradual decline in support for all mitigation measures in the first year of the pandemic. Rather, findings suggest that support for mitigation measures reflects a balancing of benefits and cost, which may change over time, and differ between measures and population subgroups.