Processes and dynamics of linkage to care from mobile/outreach and facility‑based HIV testing models in hard‑to‑reach settings in rural Tanzania. Qualitative findings of a mixed methods study
Date
2018Author
Sanga, Erica S.
Mukumbang, Ferdinand C.
Mushi, Adiel K.
Olomi, Willyhelmina
Lerebo, Wondwossen
Zarowsky, Christina
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
BACKGROUND: Like other countries, Tanzania instituted mobile and outreach testing approaches to address low HIV
testing rates at health facilities and enhance linkage to care. Available evidence from hard-to-reach rural settings of
Mbeya region, Tanzania suggests that clients testing HIV+ at facility-based sites are more likely to link to care, and
to link sooner, than those testing at mobile sites. This paper (1) describes the populations accessing HIV testing at
mobile/outreach and facility-based testing sites, and (2) compares processes and dynamics from testing to linkage to
care between these two testing models from the same study context.
METHODS: An explanatory sequential mixed-method study (a) reviewed records of all clients (n = 11,773) testing at 8
mobile and 8 facility-based testing sites over 6 months; (b), reviewed guidelines; (c) observed HIV testing sites (n = 10)
and Care and Treatment Centers (CTCs) (n = 8); (d) applied questionnaires at 0, 3 and 6 months to a cohort of 1012 HIV
newly-diagnosed clients from the 16 sites; and (e) conducted focus group discussions (n = 8) and in-depth qualitative
interviews with cohort members (n = 10) and health care providers (n = 20).
RESULTS: More clients tested at mobile/outreach than facility-based sites (56% vs 44% of 11,733, p < 0.001). Mobile
site clients were more likely to be younger and male (p < 0.001). More clients testing at facility sites were HIV positive
(21.5% vs. 7.9% of 11,733, p < 0.001). All sites in both testing models adhered to national HIV testing and care guidelines.
Staff at mobile sites showed more proactive efforts to support linkage to care, and clients report favouring the
confidentiality of mobile sites to avoid stigma. Clients who tested at mobile/outreach sites faced longer delays and
waiting times at treatment sites (CTCs).
CONCLUSIONS: Rural mobile/outreach HIV testing sites reach more people than facility based sites but they reach a
different clientèle which is less likely to be HIV +ve and appears to be less “linkage-ready”. Despite more proactive
care and confidentiality at mobile sites, linkage to care is worse than for clients who tested at facility-based sites. Our
findings highlight a combination of (a) patient-level factors, including stigma; and (b) well-established procedures and
routines for each step between testing and initiation of treatment in facility-based sites. Long waiting times at treatment
sites are a further barrier that must be addressed.