Table 6.

Use of CD4+ cell count and viral load monitoring, HIV care and treatment sites, IeDEA global consortium, 2014

	Central Africa	East Africa	Southern Africa	West Africa	CCASA net	Asia- Pacific	North America	Combined
	(n = 17)	(n = 36)	(n = 87)	(n = 16)	(n = 11)	(n = 50)	(n = 45)	(n = 262)
Rapid HIV testing	16 (94%)	33 (92%)	69 (79%)	16 (100%)	9 (82%)	37 (74%)	33 (73%)	213 (81%)
Monitoring with CD4 testing, n (%)
Yes, routinely	14 (82%)	26 (72%)	80 (92%)	14 (88%)	9 (82%)	47 (94%)	44 (100%)	234 (90%)
Yes, but not routinely	3 (18%)	10 (28%)	5 (6%)	2 (12%)	2 (18%)	3 (6%)	0 (0%)	25 (10%)
No, not available	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (2%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (1%)
Missing	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1 (<1%)
CD4 testing location, n (%)
Onsite, at same health facility	5 (31%)	19 (53%)	45 (53%)	13 (81%)	10 (91%)	34 (68%)	35 (80%)	161 (62%)
Offsite, at a distance	11 (69%)	17 (47%)	40 (47%)	3 (19%)	1 (9%)	16 (32%)	9 (20%)	97 (38%)
Missing	1	0	2	0	0	0	1	4
Monitoring with viral load testing, n (%)
Yes, routinely	13 (76%)	26 (72%)	36 (41%)	7 (44%)	8 (73%)	45 (90%)	45 (100%)	180 (69%)
Yes, but not routinely	4 (24%)	5 (14%)	27 (31%)	8 (50%)	3 (27%)	5 (10%)	0 (0%)	52 (20%)
No, not available	0 (0%)	5 (14%)	24 (28%)	1 (6%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	30 (11%)
Viral load testing location, n (%)
Onsite, at same health facility	2 (12%)	4 (13%)	9 (14%)	8 (53%)	8 (73%)	29 (58%)	30 (67%)	90 (39%)
Offsite, at a distance	15 (88%)	27 (87%)	54 (86%)	7 (47%)	3 (27%)	21 (42%)	15 (33%)	142 (61%)
Missing	0	5	24	1	0	0	0	30
*HIV-1 genotypic drug resistance testing	0 (0%)	3 (8%)	8 (9%)	5 (31%)	7 (64%)	44 (88%)	43 (96%)	110 (42%)

Percentages are computed using the number of sites with a non-missing value.

* Method of testing used not collected in survey.