AbstractsMedical & Health Science

South Africa, with an estimated 5.7 million people living with HIV, continues to have one of the largest epidemics in the world. The introduction of HAART resulted in prolonged and improved quality of life of many infected patients. However, adverse effects caused by these drugs have become a major concern as they affect the adherence of patients and in some cases even result in the death of patients. Although much research has been and is still being conducted in the area of understanding, preventing and management of ARV adverse effects, there is still a need for patients to be actively involved in self-monitoring for adverse effects. This will assist health care professionals in early identification of serious or potentially serious ARV effects. This study aimed at evaluating the usefulness of strategies developed and employed in the identification, recording and monitoring of adverse effects. The study was conducted with patients receiving HAART from a private HIV and AIDS clinic in Uitenhage, Eastern Cape, South Africa. The research project was approved by the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University Research and Ethics Committee and the research site. This was an experimental, randomized controlled study carried out over a period of three months (August to October 2009), with a sample size of 160 patients divided into four study groups of 40 patients each. Two monitoring strategies, namely an ARV adverse effect monitoring tool and a patient self-monitoring diary were developed and used for the identification and recording of adverse effects. The four study groups included a Control group, a Tool group, a Diary group and a Tool-Diary group. Willing patients, after signing an informed consent form, were randomly assigned to one of the four groups by participating health care workers at the study site. Data was retrieved from the patient files by the researcher. Descriptive statistical analysis of the findings of the study was conducted using SPSS®. One hundred and forty nine patients were included in the final data analysis. Of the 80 diaries handed out to patients, only 33 were returned and due to errors only 31 were suitable for analysis. Monitoring tools were completed and analysed for 36 patients. The tool was found to be more effective in identifying adverse effects of a physical nature (such as peripheral neuropathy and lipodystrophy) than the usual methods of monitoring employed by the clinic, whilst the diary, used alone, was found to be less effective. Use of the tool and diary combined resulted in the most significant identification and recording of central nervous system related adverse effects and physical adverse effects. However due to the low return rate of the diaries and the majority of the monitoring tool not being completed in many instances the results of this study may not be generalisable. The study results did however suggest that combining the tool and the diary methods of adverse effect identification, yielded the most favourable results when compared to each method alone. This may be…