Background: Few studies address the use of paediatric highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in Africa.

BackgroundDespite strong global interest in family-centred HIV care models, no reviews exist that detail the current approaches to family-centred care and their impact on the health of children with HIV. A systematic review of family-centred HIV care programmes was conducted in order to describe both programme components and paediatric cohort characteristics.MethodsWe searched online databases, including PubMed and the International AIDS Society abstract database, using systematic criteria. Data were extracted regarding programme setting, staffing, services available and enrolment methods, as well as cohort demographics and paediatric outcomes.ResultsThe search yielded 25 publications and abstracts describing 22 separate cohorts. These contained between 43 and 657 children, and varied widely in terms of staffing, services provided, enrolment methods and cohort demographics. Data on clinical outcomes was limited, but generally positive. Excellent adherence, retention in care, and low mortality and/or loss to follow up were documented.ConclusionsThe family-centred model of care addresses many needs of infected patients and other household members. Major reported obstacles involved recruiting one or more types of family members into care, early diagnosis and treatment of infected children, preventing mortality during children's first six months of highly active antiretroviral therapy, and staffing and infrastructural limitations. Recommendations include: developing interventions to enrol hard-to-reach populations; identifying high-risk patients at treatment initiation and providing specialized care; and designing and implementing evidence-based care packages. Increased research on family-centred care, and better documentation of interventions and outcomes is also critical.

IntroductionTriage protocols standardize and improve patient care in accident and emergency departments (A&Es). Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH), the largest public tertiary hospital in East Africa, is resource-limited and was without A&E-specific triage protocols.ObjectivesWe sought to standardize patient triage through implementation of the South African Triage Scale (SATS). We aimed to (1) assess the reliability of triage decisions among A&E healthcare workers following an educational intervention and (2) analyze the validity of the SATS in KNH’s A&E.MethodsPart 1 was a prospective, before and after trial utilizing an educational intervention and assessing triage reliability using previously validated vignettes administered to 166 healthcare workers. Part 2 was a triage chart review wherein we assessed the validity of the SATS in predicting patient disposition outcomes by inclusion of 2420 charts through retrospective, systematic sampling.ResultsHealthcare workers agreed with an expert defined triage standard for 64% of triage scenarios following an educational intervention, and had a 97% agreement allowing for a one-level discrepancy in the SATS score. There was “good” inter-rater agreement based on an intraclass correlation coefficient and quadratic weighted kappa. We analyzed 1209 pre-SATS and 1211 post-SATS patient charts and found a non-significant difference in undertriage and statistically significant decrease in overtriage rates between the pre- and post-SATS cohorts (undertriage 3.8 and 7.8%, respectively, p = 0.2; overtriage 70.9 and 62.3%, respectively, p < 0.05). The SATS had a sensitivity of 92.2% and specificity of 37.7% for predicting admission, death, or discharge in the A&E.ConclusionHealthcare worker triage decisions using the SATS were more consistent with expert opinion following an educational intervention. The SATS also performed well in predicting outcomes with high sensitivity and satisfactory levels of both undertriage and overtriage, confirming the SATS as a contextually appropriate triage system at a major East African A&E.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12245-019-0221-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Obama administration has unveiled a new 6-year, $63 billion Global Health Initiative. In addition to the reauthorization of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) to fund HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, the plan also supports maternal and child health (MCH) initiatives that are rooted in a proposal known as the Mother and Child Campaign. The architects of the Obama administration's Global Health Initiative recommend funding the Mother and Child Campaign at the expense of future funding increases for PEPFAR. The idea that differing global health initiatives must compete with each other lacks not only ethical legitimacy but also scientific merit. We believe that MCH need not to be framed in opposition to PEPFAR. Confronting illness in isolation - whether by funding PEPFAR at the expense of programs that target MCH or vice versa - cannot be our way forward. Given the intimate connection between HIV/AIDS and MCH, we affirm supporting PEPFAR and MCH programs together. We argue that policies that de-emphasize PEPFAR threaten to undermine, rather than support, MCH in countries with high HIV/AIDS prevalence. PEPFAR has directly and indirectly supported the care and treatment of other milieu specific diseases, including those afflicting mothers and children, bringing about broad benefits to the primary healthcare systems of recipient countries. We advocate the vertical integration of MCH initiatives into PEPFAR in order to create a comprehensive approach to addressing MCH against the global backdrop of HIV/AIDS.