Fig 1.
Pragmatic model with contextual factors considered in the conducting continuum of care interventions and measurements.
Fig 2.
General structure of the intervention according to the steps of pre-implementation, implementation, and post-implementation of CCM.
Fig 3.
The regular assistance flow and lost to follow-up flow of PLHIV in the continuum of care identified by the SIMC.
Fig 4.
Health regions and services included in the intervention and number of patients with treatment gap, virologic failure, or who were lost to follow-up.
a. Clinical Monitoring System, May 2019.
Table 1.
Number of HIV healthcare services that participated in the intervention according to intervention phase and health region.
Table 2.
Patients’ statuses in the SIMC report after analyses by the healthcare services.
Fig 5.
Flow diagram of patients with virologic failure during the intervention.
Table 3.
Characteristics of patients with virologic failure (n = 1188).
Table 4.
Characteristics of patients who were lost to follow-up and restarted therapy (n = 700).
Table 5.
Strategies tailored for health care professionals to identify PLHIV with a detectable viral load, treatment gap, and lost to follow-up (LFU).
Table 6.
Strategies tailored by healthcare professionals to engage PLHIV with a detectable viral load, treatment gap, and/or LFU.
Table 7.
Professional perceptions on the use of continuum of care (CCM) monitoring in pre- and post-implementation steps.
Table 8.
Intervention results according to the RE-AIM dimension.