Table 1.
Implementation of Treat All at IeDEA sites, by national guideline status
| Participating sites | Sites implementing Treat All | Sites implementing Treat All prior to national guideline changea (N = 170) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All sites | In countries with national adoption of Treat All | In countries without national adoption of Treat All | All sites (N = 201) | In countries with national adoption of Treat All (N = 175) | In countries without national adoption of Treat All (N = 26) | ||
| All sites | 201 (100%) | 175 (87.1%) | 26 (12.9%) | 187 (93.0%) | 169 (96.6%) | 18 (69.2%) | 59 (34.7%) |
| IeDEA region [Fisher's exact test p‐value] | [p = 0.004] | [p = 0.446] | [p = 0.309] | [p < 0.0001] | |||
| Asia‐Pacific | 42 (20.9%) | 34 (81%) | 8 (19%) | 36 (85.7%) | 31 (91.2%) | 5 (62.5%) | 21 (65.6%) |
| Caribbean, Central and South America | 14 (7.0%) | 10 (71.4%) | 4 (28.6%) | 14 (100%) | 10 (100%) | 4 (100%) | 6 (50%) |
| Central Africa | 19 (9.5%) | 16 (84.2%) | 3 (15.8%) | 17 (89.5%) | 16 (100%) | 1 (33.3%) | 3 (17.6%) |
| East Africa | 42 (20.9%) | 39 (92.9%) | 3 (7.1%) | 42 (100%) | 39 (100%) | 3 (100%) | 13 (33.3%) |
| North America | 41 (20.4%) | 41 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 39 (95.1%) | 39 (95.1%) | 0 (0%) | 11 (35.5%) |
| Southern Africa | 35 (17.4%) | 35 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 34 (97.1%) | 34 (97.1%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| West Africa | 8 (4.0%) | 0 (0%) | 8 (100%) | 5 (62.5%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (62.5%) | 5 (100%) |
| Health facility type | [p = 0.131] | [p = 0.363] | [p = 0.628] | [p = 0.011] | |||
| Primary (health centre) | 101 (50.2%) | 96 (95%) | 5 (5%) | 97 (96%) | 94 (97.9%) | 3 (60.0%) | 22 (24.7%) |
| District hospital | 18 (9.0%) | 18 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 17 (94.4%) | 17 (94.4%) | 0 (0%) | 6 (37.5%) |
| Regional/provincial or teaching hospital | 82 (40.8%) | 61 (74.4%) | 21 (25.6%) | 73 (89%) | 58 (95.1%) | 15 (71.4%) | 31 (47.7%) |
| Sector | [p = 0.703] | [p = 1.00] | [p = 1.00] | [p = 0.129] | |||
| Public | 169 (84.1%) | 144 (85.2%) | 25 (14.8%) | 156 (92.3%) | 139 (96.5%) | 17 (68.0%) | 45 (31.9%) |
| Private | 32 (15.9%) | 31 (96.9%) | 1 (3.1%) | 31 (96.9%) | 30 (96.8%) | 1 (100%) | 14 (48.3%) |
| Facility location | [p = 0.121] | [p = 0.673] | [p = 1.00] | [p < 0.0001] | |||
| Urban/Mostly urban | 149 (74.1%) | 124 (83.2%) | 25 (16.8%) | 136 (91.3%) | 119 (96.1%) | 17 (68.0%) | 54 (44.3%) |
| Rural/Mostly rural | 52 (25.9%) | 51 (98.1%) | 1 (1.9%) | 51 (98.1%) | 50 (98.0%) | 1 (100%) | 5 (10.4%) |
| Country income group | [p = 0.751] | [p = 0.410] | [p = 0.453] | [p < 0.0001] | |||
| Low income | 58 (28.9%) | 50 (86.2%) | 8 (13.8%) | 54 (93.1%) | 49 (98.0%) | 5 (62.5%) | 6 (11.1%) |
| Lower‐middle income | 49 (24.4%) | 37 (75.5%) | 12 (24.5%) | 44 (89.8%) | 37 (100%) | 7 (58.3%) | 19 (47.5%) |
| Upper‐middle income | 29 (14.4%) | 27 (93.1%) | 2 (6.9%) | 28 (96.6%) | 26 (96.3%) | 2 (100%) | 9 (34.6%) |
| High income | 65 (32.3%) | 61 (93.8%) | 4 (6.2%) | 61 (93.8%) | 57 (93.4%) | 4 (100%) | 25 (50%) |
| PEPFAR‐supported country | [p = 0.093] | [p = 0.094] | [p = 0.683] | [p < 0.0001] | |||
| No | 94 (46.8%) | 80 (85.1%) | 14 (14.9%) | 84 (89.4%) | 75 (93.8%) | 9 (64.3%) | 37 (52.1%) |
| Yes | 107 (53.2%) | 95 (88.8%) | 12 (11.2%) | 103 (96.3%) | 94 (98.9%) | 9 (75.0%) | 22 (22.2%) |
| GFATM‐supported country | [p = 0.574] | [p = 0.231] | [p = 0.277] | [p < 0.0003] | |||
| No | 76 (37.8%) | 72 (94.7%) | 4 (5.3%) | 72 (94.7%) | 68 (94.4%) | 4 (100%) | 30 (50.0%) |
| Yes | 125 (62.2%) | 103 (82.4%) | 22 (17.6%) | 115 (92.0%) | 101 (98.1%) | 14 (63.6%) | 29 (26.4%) |
| Year of national Treat All adoption | [p < 0.0001] | [p = 0.060] | ‐ | [p < 0.0001] | |||
| 2012 (2 countries) | 41 (20.4%) | 41 (100%) | ‐ | 39 (95.1%) | 39 (95.1%) | ‐ | 11 (35.5%) |
| 2013 (2 countries) | 8 (4.0%) | 8 (100%) | ‐ | 8 (100%) | 8 (100%) | ‐ | 4 (50%) |
| 2014 (2 countries) | 6 (3.0%) | 6 (100%) | ‐ | 6 (100%) | 6 (100%) | ‐ | 1 (16.7%) |
| 2015 (2 countries) | 18 (9.0%) | 18 (100%) | ‐ | 16 (88.9%) | 16 (88.9%) | ‐ | 8 (61.5%) |
| 2016 (16 countries) | 97 (48.3%) | 97 (100%) | ‐ | 96 (99.0%) | 96 (99.0%) | ‐ | 15 (16.3%) |
| 2017 (2 countries) | 5 (2.5%) | 5 (100%) | ‐ | 4 (80.0%) | 4 (80.0%) | ‐ | 4 (100%) |
| Treat All not adopted nationallyb (15 countries) | 26 (12.9%) | ‐ | 26 (100%) | 18 (69.2%) | 0 (0%) | 18 (100%) | 16 (100%) |
aSites with known month and year of Treat All introduction; bsites in countries that adopted Treat All in 2017 after the survey was completed counted among sites where Treat All was not yet adopted nationally.