108 p. / Made available in DSpace on 2015-07-22T20:49:44Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0
Previous issue date: 2011-05-25 / Objetivo: Determinar se as estimativas de adesao ao tratamento antirretroviral baseadas na entrevista padronizada e na contagem de comprimidos/capsulas por ocasiao da consulta sao comparaveis a adesao estimada pelo dispositivo eletronico (MEMS). Metodos: Estudo descritivo, observacional, prospectivo, constituido por amostragem de conveniencia, constituido por 50 mulheres anti-HIV e HIV RNA positiva, em uso de antirretroviral e com carga viral abaixo do limite de deteccao nos ultimos seis meses. Foram comparados tres metodos para estimar adesao ao tratamento antirretroviral: entrevista padronizada baseada no ACTG, contagem de comprimidos/capsulas e dispositivo eletronico (MEMS). Resultados: O metodo MEMS foi o que apresentou menor media (91,53%) de adesao ao tratamento antirretroviral em comparacao com a contagem de comprimidos/capsulas (93,75%) e entrevista padronizada (97,80%). A estimativa de adesao com base na entrevista padronizada superestimou a adesao em relacao ao MEMS, com significancia estatistica em 10 dos 12 meses de seguimento. Essa superestimacao persistiu mesmo quando se considerou as medias de adesao obtidas com o MEMS somente nos quatro dias que antecederam a consulta. Em relacao a contagem de comprimidos/capsulas, as medias de adesao obtidas com a entrevista padronizada tambem tenderam a superestimar a adesao com significancia estatistica em nove dos doze meses de acompanhamento. As medidas de adesao obtidas por meio da entrevista padronizada e do dispositivo MEMS foram significantemente diferentes em 10 dos 12 meses. Ao considerar as pacientes com adesao global MEMS .90%, as estimativas de adesao da entrevista padronizada tambem foram superestimadas em relacao ao dispositivo MEMS em 10 dos 12 meses de acompanhamento. Entretanto, em 11 dos 12 meses estas diferencas foram inferiores a 3%. As medias encontradas com a contagem de comprimidos/capsulas comparadas as medias obtidas com o dispositivo MEMS superestimaram significantemente adesao em quatro dos 12 meses de estudo. Em cada paciente, o valor estimado de adesao medida pela contagem de comprimidos/capsulas foi semelhante para todos ARVs. Conclusao: A entrevista padronizada que considerava a adesao ao tratamento antirretroviral a partir dos quatro dias que antecederam a consulta utilizando este valor para estimar a adesao do periodo mensal, mostrou-se insuficiente. A comparacao das adesoes avaliadas pelo MEMS, contagem de comprimidos/capsulas e entrevista padronizada, possibilitou um panorama geral de adesao das pacientes ao longo do mes. Ter conhecimento acerca das falhas na adesao e um dado importante para ajustar as estrategias de promocao a saude e consequentemente intervir precocemente numa possivel falha ao tratamento. / Objective: Estimate if the adherence to antiretroviral therapy based on standardized interview and pill counting during the personal appointment are comparable to the adherence estimated by the medication event monitoring system (MEMS). Methods: A descriptive, observational and prospective study was carried out by the convenience sampling, consisting of 50 women anti-HIV and positive HIV RNA in the use of antiretroviral therapy and viral load below the detection limit in the last six months. Three different methods were compared to assess the adherence to antiretroviral therapy: ACTG standardized interview-based, pill counting and measurements using the electronic device (MEMS). Results: The MEMS method showed the lowest average (91.53%) related to the adherence to antiretroviral therapy when compared with pill counting (93.75%) and standardized interview (97.80%). An overestimated adherence was obtained based on standardized interview when compared to MEMS, presenting a statistical significance in 10 out of 12 months of monitoring. This overestimation persisted even considering the average adherence obtained with the MEMS four days prior to the personal appointment. Regarding pill counting method, the obtained average adherence by standardized interview also demonstrated a tendency to overestimate the adherence, presenting a statistical significance in nine out of twelve months of monitoring. The adherence measurements obtained through standardized interviews and MEMS were significantly different in 10 out of 12 months. Considering the overall adherence patients to MEMS . 90%, the estimative of adherence to standardized interviews was also overestimated in relation to the MEMS in 10 out of 12 months monitoring. However, in 11 out of 12 months these differences were less than 3%. The averages founded by pill counting method significantly overestimated the adherence in four of the 12-month study when compared to averages obtained using the MEMS. For each patient, the estimated value of adherence measured by pill counting was similar for all the ARVs. Conclusion: A standardized interview that considered adherence to antiretroviral therapy from the four days preceding the consultation using this value to estimate the member ship of the monthly period, was insufficient.The comparison of the adherence provided by MEMS, pill counting and standardized interview methods, allowed an overview of patients adherence throughout the month. The knowledge obtention related to failures is an important factor to adjust strategies aiming health promoting. In addition, it can promote an early intervention in treatment failure. / TEDE / BV UNIFESP: Teses e dissertações
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:IBICT/oai:repositorio.unifesp.br:11600/9220 |
| Date | 25 May 2011 |
| Creators | Barbosa, Barbara Jacqueline Peres [UNIFESP] |
| Contributors | Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Castelo Filho, Adauto [UNIFESP], Vaz, Maria José Rodrigues [UNIFESP] |
| Publisher | Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP) |
| Source Sets | IBICT Brazilian ETDs |
| Language | Portuguese |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion, info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
| Source | reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP, instname:Universidade Federal de São Paulo, instacron:UNIFESP |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds