Impact of the Umoyo mother-infant pair model on HIV-positive mothers’ social support, perceived stigma and 12-month retention of their HIV-exposed infants in PMTCT care: Evidence from a cluster randomized controlled trial in Zambia

Background: Public health systems in resource-constrained settings have a critical role to play in the elimination of HIV transmission but are often financially constrained. This study is an evaluation of a mother-infant-pair model called “Umoyo,” which was designed to be low cost and scalable in a public health system. Facilities with the Umoyo model dedicate a clinic day to provide services to only HIV-exposed infants (HEIs) and their mothers. Such models are in operation with reported success in Zambia but have not been rigorously tested. This work establishes whether the Umoyo model would improve 12-month retention of HEIs. Methods: A cluster randomized trial including 28 facilities was conducted across two provinces of Zambia to investigate the impact on 12-month retention of HEIs in care. These facilities were offering Prevention of Mother-to-Child-Transmission (PMTCT) services and supported by the same implementing partner. Randomization was achieved by use of the covariate-constrained optimization technique. Secondary outcomes included the impact of Umoyo clinics on social support and perceived HIV stigma among mothers. For each of the outcomes, a difference-in-difference analysis was conducted at the facility level using the unweighted t test. Results: From 13 control (12-month retention at endline: 45%) and 11 intervention facilities (12-month retention at endline: 33%), it was found that Umoyo clinics had no impact on 12-month retention of HEIs in the t test (- 11%; 99% CI – 40.1%, 17.2%). Regarding social support and stigma, the un-weighted t test showed no impact though sensitivity tests showed that Umoyo had an impact on increasing social support (0.31; 99% CI 0.08, 0.54) and reducing perceived stigma from health care workers (- 0.27; 99% CI – 0.46, – 0.08). Conclusion: The Umoyo approach of having a dedicated clinic day for HEIs and their mothers did not improve retention of HEIs though there are indications that it can increase social support among mothers and reduce stigma. Without further support to the underlying health system, based on the evidence generated through this evaluation, the Umoyo clinic day approach on its own is not considered an effective intervention to increase retention of HIV-exposed infants. Trial registration: Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, ID: PACTR201702001970148. Prospectively registered on 13 January 2017. This impact evaluation was a two-arm, difference-in-difference, cluster randomized controlled trial conducted in Lusaka and Eastern provinces of Zambia. It assessed the change in proportion of HEIs retained in care 12 months before and after the Umoyo MIP clinic was launched in 14 intervention sites compared to the change in retention in 14 control sites with the standard of care. There were three main target populations from which the sample was drawn: health facilities, HEIs and HIV-positive mothers. Facilities were eligible for the study if they were public sector health facilities caring for large numbers of HIV-positive pregnant women (i.e., an estimate of 10 HEIs born per month) and supported by the implementing partner for the study (the Center for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia (CIDRZ)) at the launch of Umoyo in February 2017. At that time, CIDRZ was supporting a total of 124 public health facilities in Lusaka, Western and Eastern provinces with the goal of expanding access to more efficacious PMTCT regimens and antiretroviral therapy (ART), and on early infant diagnosis for HEIs. The HEI target populations for the study (the primary cohort) were those infants born to HIV-positive mothers within a 4-month period (November 2015 through February 2016 for the pre-implementation period or November 2016 through February 2017 for the post-implementation period) and had their 6-week early infant diagnostic test as well as their first follow-up visit at the public health facilities. The final target population was HIV-positive mothers to participate in an exit survey, and mothers were eligible if they had attended the public health facilities for infant care (6 weeks to 2 years old) during the study period. A cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted in a sample of 28 facilities. Each of the facilities were selected based on availability of PMTCT services and approximately 10 or more HEIs born each month. The sample of HEIs was selected from the HEI registers based on the inclusion criteria in Table 1. All the criteria in the table need to be jointly met for a child to be considered eligible for enrolment in the study. Sample selection for children Note: dates are all inclusive DNA PCR deoxyribonucleic acid polyerase chain reaction For the primary cohort, we report the a priori estimated effect size we could detect assuming 14 facilities in each of two arms and 30 MIPs per facility (pre and post). The following equation [21] with the specific parameters in Table 2 was used to estimate that we would be able to determine a Sample size calculation for primary outcome aa conservative value of rho was used MIP mother-infant pair 12% difference in the average change in the proportion of HEIs who returned for their 12-month visit (alpha 0.05 and power of 80%). For the mother interviews, mothers were approached during clinic days when PMTCT services were offered: women were eligible if they were the mother of an HEI born within 24 months of the survey date, and if the mothers were over the age of 18 years. Women and children who did not meet these criteria or those that did not attend the under-five clinic on the day the research team visited the facility were excluded. CIDRZ was providing intensified on-site mentorship to facility staff on provision of integrated services to HIV patients in general. Additionally, health facility staff and community health workers were oriented and mentored on early infant diagnosis, family planning, and how to strengthen documentation in the health facility registers. Although CIDRZ was mentoring facility staff on provision of integrated services to HIV patients, there was no specific intervention targeting MIPs in PMTCT care. However, the community health workers were actively following up MIPs who missed scheduled appointments. The Umoyo MIP clinic is a designated clinic day for HIV-positive mothers and their HEIs where they receive routine child health care and routine maternal ART services including the following: Services are provided to eligible MIPs on one or more days in the month, depending on the volume of infants that the health facility expects in the month. Facilities with relatively large catchment populations had more than one Umoyo MIP clinic day in a month – even up to four per month in one site. Regardless of the number of sessions that a clinic held, each mother attended only one visit monthly. Whereas the primary population for the study was a narrow cohort of infants in 2016 and 2017, the population eligible for the intervention was any infant born to an HIV-positive mother all the way up to 24 months of age. In addition, MIPs can remain in the Umoyo MIP clinic until cessation of breastfeeding and/or the child is 24 months. Those infants who test HIV-negative at 24 months are discharged from PMTCT care while those who seroconvert are transitioned to continue treatment at the normal ART clinic together with their mothers. However, only results on the primary cohort of infants are presented in this study. Six weeks before the study began, a 2-day off-site orientation of at least two health facility staff in the treatment arm was conducted by staff from Kitwe District who were already implementing Umoyo within the public health system. A follow-up on-site (facility by facility) orientation of all health facility including lay counselors was conducted by the CIDRZ team. To ensure that data quality was maintained in both study arms, the CIDRZ team conducted data-quality mentorship exercises in all facilities enrolled in the study. Additionally, across both study arms, a nurse within mother and child health department was identified to be the custodian of the list of defaulters and was responsible for communicating with the lay counselors regarding any MIPs that needed follow-up within the community. This on-site orientation marked the beginning of the first month of the Umoyo MIP clinic implementation. Throughout the intervention, the CIDRZ role was to monitor the implementation fidelity of intervention (at least once within a quarter), ensure that each facility has adequate supplies of requisite medical supplies needed for PMTCT service provision and mentorship on data quality. Intervention sites were also provided with a job aid (Additional file 1) to help the health facility staff with scheduling their monthly Umoyo MIP clinics. Intervention sites were also instructed to keep an attendance book (Additional file 2) for the Umoyo program. At the control sites, the facilities continued to function on a business as usual basis. The primary outcome of interest was the change in the proportion of HEIs who were retained in care at 12 months; this outcome combined HEIs with negative or unknown HIV status receiving a test at 12 months with HIV-positive infants attending the scheduled 12-month visit for ARV drug refills. Secondary outcomes included: Given the relatively small number of facilities per arm (N = 14), a covariate-constrained optimization technique was used to randomize intervention assignment and achieve balance in the two arms [22]. Using estimates for annual expected HEI live births, the 2016 catchment population and districts, facilities were randomized using covariate-constrained randomization. The 28 sites were randomized 1000 times and those iterations in which there was imbalance with an alpha of 0.1 on the aforementioned characteristics were removed. Among those remaining iterations where there was no imbalance detected at a threshold (F test beta = 0, alpha 0.1), an iteration of assignment was then selected at random. Three key sources were collected: patient registers, mother exit interviews, and facility-level questionnaires. We also gathered data on monthly visits using the Septrine/Cotrimoxazole booklets (often called Septrine booklets in Zambia) and information on TB treatment using the Zambia National TB & Leprosy Control Program, IPT Register. However, we found that these booklets were not utilized in a standard way across all facilities. Thus, to minimize bias, the outcomes within this report rely on the HIV Exposed Infant (and Mothers) Follow-Up Register only. We list our specific method of defining “retained” for each outcome by HIV status within the “Analysis” section below. For the mothers’ stigma and social support, we performed mother exit surveys using questionnaires validated in African countries with comparable HIV profiles to Zambia such as Swaziland, Lesotho Malawi, Tanzania, and Uganda [23, 24]. The tools were translated into local dialect and back-translated by an independent contractor. The surveys were created as follows: Facility level data was collected from surveys with key facility-level personnel to assess the general working environment in the facilities during the period of the study. The aspects relating to the general working environment included frequency of stock-outs for key commodities relevant to the study outcomes, and whether sites received any additional support for PMTCT and/or pediatric HIV from implementing partners other than CIDRZ. Data was collected at three points in time, with training of data collectors immediately prior to the start of each data collection (Table 3). Schedule of data collection Data collectors were hired specifically for this study and received 3-day training. Direct supervision within facilities was conducted for all enumeration teams on a rolling basis and troubleshooting support was provided to all enumerators. All data was electronically entered using SurveyCTO at the point of collection except the mother interviews which were administered using paper tools. At the end of the data collection period, all the mothers’ questionnaires were entered twice by two different enumerators. Once the double data entry was complete, the discrepancies in entry were reconciled by checking with the entry in the hardcopy. Facility, child, and mother characteristics were compared to examine balance between the two arms before the intervention was implemented. For the facility characteristics, the self-reported values from the HCW were assumed to be facility-specific and the distribution (percentage and 99% confidence interval (CI)) was calculated. For the child and mother characteristics, an average estimate was calculated for each facility which was then pooled together per arm; to this end, the values, unless otherwise specified, are aggregate facility-level values. This analysis method for cRCTs produces a conservative estimate of difference when the facility sample size is less than 10 facilities per arm [6]. The difference between the two arms during the pre-implementation phase, as well as in the change from pre to post implementation was tested using unweighted t tests with unequal variances. Given that the evaluation was being implemented in a natural setting, monitoring of Umoyo exposure was not standardized or rigorously maintained; thus, per protocol analysis was not carried out. All analysis reported are intent-to-treat. For the outcomes, we categorized the eligible children from both the pre-implementation period and post-implementation period as retained according to the outcomes as listed in Table 4. Categorization for primary child outcomes Evidence of 12-month test • Date of 12-month test date listed; or • Result of 12-month rapid diagnostic test result listed (i.e., positive or negative) • Attended 12-month visit if tested positive at 6-week; or • Attended 12-month visit (i.e., 6-month ARV registry) if tested positive at 6 months Evidence 6-month test occurred: • Date of either 6-month virologic test date listed; virologic results received listed; or virologic test results collected by mother; or • Result of 6-month virologic test result listed and evidence attended 9-month session • Recorded whether the infant was either breastfeeding, received cotrimoxazole, or received nevirapine at 9-month visit and evidence of 12-month test • Date of 12-month test date listed; or • Result of 12-month rapid diagnostic test result listed (i.e., positive or negative) • Attended 6-, 9-, and 12-month visit, if tested positive at 6 weeks; or • Attended 12- and 9-month visit (i.e., 6- and 3-month ARV registry) if tested positive at 6 months ARV antiretroviral therapy, HEI HIV-exposed infant For each outcome above, an individual-level logistic generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a binomial distribution and link logit was conducted as part of the sensitivity analysis which accounted for clustering and varying number of eligible children per facility. This regression included an indicator variable for time (pre vs. post), an indicator for whether the child came from an intervention facility (control vs. intervention), and a time by intervention interaction to estimate the program impact. The model also accounted for a potential difference during the pre-implementation phase between the arms; though differences were not statistically significant, we included a covariate for the average number of children per facility. To account for the multiple outcomes and increased risk of Type I error (incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis), we adjusted the alpha to an alpha of 0.05/11 (for 11 outcomes) or 0.0045; thus, we report 99% CIs (1–0.005) for our estimates, and all p value testing is considered significant if below < 0.0045. The GEE model included the facility-level as cluster with an exchangeable correlation structure. For mothers regarding social support and stigma outcomes all mothers received a score similar to the Holzmer 2007 work but accounting for the fact we included a “not applicable” (“N/A”) response and had a lower maximum possible range [24]. To this end, we gave all “Don’t know, refused, or don’t want to say, or N/A” responses a missing value. We then gave those who had the lowest answer on the item (e.g., disagree, or never occurred, or no) a zero and those with the next two levels of responses a 1 or 2, accordingly. We then created a weighted score: all items for the specific topic were summed and the mother received a score by dividing this sum by the total number of non-missing items. Thus, the score always represented the highest level of either social support or stigma. Similar to the child outcomes, the analysis was run in two methods: a facility-aggregated analysis using unweighted t tests and an individual-level linear GEE. For the multivariable linear GEE model, though differences were not statistically significant, we included covariates for the average number of interviews per facility, if the mother was aged over 40 years, if she were married, or had been on HIV treatment for a year.