Table 2.
Participant activity in the EAT program
| Total | Males | Females | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N = 87 | N = 41 | N = 46 | |
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | |
| Drug regimen at baseline | |||
| ART for HIV treatment | 15 (17) | 5 (12) | 10 (22) |
| ART for HIV treatment + TB Treatment | 2 (2) | 2 (5) | 0 |
| ART for HIV treatment + antibiotic(s) | 58 (67) | 22 (54) | 36 (78) |
| PrEP with or without antibiotic(s) or other medication | 6 (7) | 6 (15) | 0 |
| PEP with or without antibiotic(s) or other medicationa | 1 (1) | 1 (2) | 0 |
| TB Treatment with or without antibiotic(s) or other medicationa | 3 (3) | 3 (7) | 0 |
| Antibiotic(s) with or without other medication | 1 (1) | 1 (2) | 0 |
| Other medication onlya | 1 (1) | 1 (2) | 0 |
| Schedule of EAT visitsb | |||
| Daily | 49 (56) | 27 (66) | 22 (48) |
| Weekly | 35 (40) | 13 (32) | 22 (48) |
| Inconsistent | 3 (3) | 1 (2) | 2 (4) |
| Barriers to attendance at first visit | |||
| No transport fare | 80 (92) | 35 (85) | 45 (98) |
| Police and other law enforcementc | 2 (2) | 2 (5) | 0 |
| Otherd | 5 (6) | 4 (10) | 1 (2) |
| Total number of visits | 5761 | 2712 | 3049 |
| Median # of visits (IQR) | 57 (20–132) | 59 (21–131) | 55 (20–133) |
| Participant status at end of pilot | |||
| Active in EAT | 58 (67) | 29 (71) | 29 (63) |
| Not active in EAT | 29 (33) | 12 (29) | 17 (37) |
| Reasons for not active in EAT | |||
| Lost to follow-up from EATe | 10 (11) | 3 (7) | 7 (15) |
| Lost to follow-up from AMPATHf | 2 (2) | 0 | 2 (4) |
| Deceased | 2 (2) | 0 | 2 (4) |
| Relocated | 10 (11) | 4 (10) | 6 (13) |
| In prison | 5 (6) | 5 (12) | 0 |
PrEP pre-exposure prophylaxis
PEP post-exposure prophylaxis
aOther medications included olanzapine, insulin, and paracetamol
bSchedule of EAT visits is how often SCI were supposed to attend EAT to receive medications. The schedule was determined by the pharmacy technologist and the participant in accordance with the participant’s medication regimen and the participant's ability to attend EAT, e.g. some participants said they would come daily to collect medications, whereas some said they would prefer to come weekly and collect the entire weeks’ dose of pills
cOther law enforcement include county officials, Askari
dOther barriers to attendance included not feeling well, disruptions related to substance use (e.g. had used alcohol and were unable to come), and familial responsibilities (e.g. taking care of a young child)
eLost to follow up from EAT defined as: 2 weeks of non-attendance at EAT and unsuccessful attempts to follow up by PN, with no return to EAT by the end of the study period
fLost to follow up from AMPATH defined as: no visit at an AMPATH clinic within 90 days of the expected follow-up date