Table 1:

Study characteristics and findings of studies in qualitative review

1st Author (Year)	Study Dates	Location	Sample (na)	Design	Data Collection Method	Measure	Findings
Anderson 1 (2007)	Not reported	Detroit, MI (1 out of 10 HRSA-SPNS sites)	Women not fully engaged in care (61)	1-group prepost	Self-report	% participants did not miss any HIV medical appointment in past 6 monthsb	Pre-intervention: 21% 57% in first 6-month period 61% in second 6-month period No significance tests conducted
Anderson 2 (2007)	Not reported	Detroit, MI (1 out of 10 HRSA-SPNS sites)	Women not fully engaged in care and who report heroin use and/or mental health issues (51)	1-group prepost	Self-report	% participants did not miss any HIV medical appointment in past 6 months	Pre-intervention: 10% 51% in first 6-month period 58% in second 6-month period No significance tests conducted
Bradford (2007)	10/03–6/06	Boston, MA, Portland, OR Seattle, WA Washington, DC (4 out of 10 HRSA-SPNS sites)	Not fully engaged in HIV care (437)	1-group prepost	Self-report	% participants had 2 or more HIV medical appointments in past 6 months	Pre-intervention: 64% 87% at 6 months, pre-post change: p< 0.001 79% at 12 months, pre-post change: p<.0001
Davilla (2012)	1/02–8/08	Houston, TX	Young African American & Hispanic patients (174)	3-group historical comparison	Administrative & medical records	% having 3 or more quarters with at least 1 visit in 12 months (adequate visit constancy) % having ≥180 days between 2 consecutive HIV primary care visits in 12 months (gaps in care)	Adequate visit constancy ORc (95% CI) No youth services: 0.42d (0.17–1.03), nse Youth services: (reference) Enhanced youth services: 1.18d (0.55–2.53), ns Gaps in care OR (95% CI) No youth services: 1.37d (0.46–4.17), ns Youth services: (reference) Enhanced services: 5.56d (1.20–25.0), p<0.05)
Enriquez (2008)	3/05–3/07	Kansas City, MS	Hispanics (43)	1-group prepost	Medical records	# of HIV specialty clinic visits in a year	Pre-intervention mean: 2.81 (SD=2.34) Post-intervention mean: 5.30 (SD=2.69) (t[42], = 6.29, p<0.05)
Gardner (2005)	3/01–5/02	Atlanta, GA Baltimore, MD Miami, FL Los Angeles, CA	Newly diagnosed (273)	2-group, randomized	Medical records used to confirm self-reports	% participants visited HIV clinician at least twice in a 12-month period	64% vs. 49% (intervention vs. control); Adjusted relative risk =1.41, p=0.006
Gardner (in press)	5/08–5/10	Baltimore, MD Boston, MA Birmingham, AL Brooklyn, NY Houston, TX Miami, FL	HIV patients who had appointments for primary care (8535)	1-group prepost	Medical records	% participants who kept two consecutive primary care appointments following exposure to the intervention (anchor visit) compared with patients with anchor visits in the year prior to onset of the intervention	Pre-intervention period: 48.6% Intervention period: 52.2%c, p<0.001
Hightow-Weidman (2011)	6/06–8/09	Bronx, NY Chapel Hill, NC, Chicago, IL Detroit, MI Houston, TX Los Angeles, CA Oakland, CA Rochester, NY (7 out of 8 HRSA-SPNS sites)	Newly diagnosed or out of care young African American or Latino MSM (89)	2-group historical comparison	Medical records	% participants had at least 3 HIV care visits within the first year after enrollment with at least 1 visit in the first 6 months	Intervention vs. historical control (80% vs. 67%, t statistic = 2.16, p=0.03)
Naar-King (2007)	Not reported	Detroit, MI Los Angeles, CA Portland, OR Washington, DC (4 out of 10 HRSA-SPNS sites)	Newly diagnosed (104)	1-group post only	Medical records	% participants had a medical appointment in both 6-month periods over a 12 month assessment	81% had a medical appointment in both 6-month time periods over 12 months No significance tests reported
Naar-King (2009)	03–06	Detroit, MI	Adolescents and young adults enrolled in medical care (83)	2-group, randomized (peer vs. professional delivered)	Medical records	Gap in medical appointments (e.g., no appointment in a 3-month period). A 4-point gap score was calculated based on number of gaps over 12 months (e.g., 0= no gaps; 1=1 gap or appointments in 3 of 4 quarters)	Peer-vs. professional-delivered 1.34 vs. 1.52, F=0.54, ns Peer-delivered (pre vs. post) 2.76 vs. 1.33, no significance tests reported Professional-delivered (pre vs. post) 2.53 vs. 1.52 (no significance tests reported
Purcell (2007)	8/01–3/05	Miami, FL New York, NY San Francisco, CA	Injection drug users (795)	2-group, randomized	Self-report	% participants who used HIV care 2 or more times in past 6 months	71% vs. 72% (intervention vs. control); adjusted OR=0.81, 95% CI = 0.57, 1.1.4, ns at 6 months 69% vs. 64% (intervention vs. control); adjusted at OR=1.14, 95% CI =0.82, 1.58, ns at 12 months
Wohl (2011)	4/06–4/09	Los Angeles, CA	Newly diagnosed or out of care African American or Latino MSM (61)	1-group post only	Medical records	% participants attended 2 or more HIV care appointments in past 6 months	70% at 6 months for whole sample 82% at 6 months for 33intermittent HIV care users No significance tests conducted
Wolitski (2010)	7/04–1/07	Baltimore, MD Chicago, IL Los Angeles, CA	Persons in unstable housing conditions (630)	2-group, randomized	Self-report	% participants had 2 or more HIV medical visits in past 6 months and being on ART	37% vs. 38% (intervention vs. control) at 6 months, ns 47% vs. 41% (intervention vs. control at 12 months), ns 49% vs. 46% (intervention vs. control at 18 months), ns

^aAnalytic sample size

^bThe number of missed visits or “no shows” during an observed period of time is one of the most common ways of measuring retention (Mugavero et al., 2010). We assumed many patients would have at least 2 appointments based on current medical recommendations.

^cOdds ratio

^dAdjusted for age, sex, race, mode of transmission, and previously in care at another clinic

^eAdjusted for changes across time in viral load, age, and health insurance

^fNot statistically significant