COVID-19 Pandemic Disrupts HIV Continuum of Care and Prevention: Implications for Research and Practice Concerning Community-Based Organizations and Frontline Providers

More quickly and more vividly than they could have anticipated, people living with (PLWH) and those at-risk for HIV felt the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, as they were asked to shelter in place and distance themselves from others. Over the months of March and April 2020, around the time shelter-in-place orders accelerated, community-based organizations (CBOs) have closed, medical offices have cut hours, and medical personnel have shifted from primary care to COVID-19 hospital units. We assess the extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the HIV Continuum of Care and Prevention—that is, testing, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), and primary care—and propose a course of action so that we may end the HIV epidemic in this decade.

Ending the HIV Epidemic Within this Decade

The United States Department of Health and Human Services has proposed a reduction in the number of HIV infections in the United States by 90% within the current decade [1]. The World Health Organization’s 90/90/90 goal also aims to contain the HIV pandemic by 2030, at which time 90% of all people living with HIV (PLWH) are projected to know their HIV status; 90% with diagnosed HIV infection are projected to receive antiretroviral therapy; and 90% of those receiving antiretroviral therapy are projected to show viral suppression. Ending the HIV pandemic requires that we gather local knowledge on which to base sustainable action. It requires leveraging local efforts led by community-based organizations helping those at high risk for HIV navigate complex diffusion systems and promote health equity—a national priority to improve health access for all, regardless of geographic boundaries, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation [2, 3].

Community-based organizations (CBOs) employ frontline service providers—social workers, health educators, navigators—to help (1) individuals of unknown HIV status access testing; (2) those at high-risk for HIV but who test negative to access physicians who can prescribe PrEP; (3) those who test positive for HIV to access primary care [4]; and all at-risk clients to access support services to help them stay on the HIV Continuum of Care and Prevention (“care continuum”) [5,6,7,8]. Nonetheless, community-engaged research suggests that, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, these frontline providers had not been consistent in how often or in how they linked clients to care continuum services. Using cross-sectional data from nearly 300 frontline providers in New York City, an epicenter of both the HIV and COVID-19 pandemics, our research shows that, in the six months prior to data collection, 50% of provider participants had linked fewer than five clients to HIV testing; 48% linked fewer than five clients to primary care; and 48% had not provided any client with PrEP education [9]. These numbers are worrisome, but longitudinal data show a brighter picture. We detected increased involvement in at least some service linkage from 76% providers at baseline to 81% over two years [10]. Nearly half (47%) of providers offered PrEP education at both of these time points; 19% started offering PrEP education since baseline; while 5% stopped offering education at follow-up [11]. Furthermore, evidence suggests that frontline providers who more frequently link clients to HIV services tend to do so as part of face-to-face client meetings, at which the provider might ask the client, while still in their presence, to contact the referral, or the provider might make the contact and hand the client written information [12]. This level of proximity is a challenge under the shelter-in-place and physical distancing orders.

COVID-19 is Likely to Impede Ending the HIV Epidemic

Before we crafted this Note from the Field, our CBO partners (i.e. managers and providers) informed us that the COVID-19 pandemic had already disrupted all care continuum services. Physical distancing between providers and clients will likely have a negative impact on how often and how frontline providers will link clients to services. This opens up a field of inquiry needed to develop best practices for referral-making. The COVID-19 pandemic quickly exposed medical (e.g. difficult access to services, lack of testing and insurance), and structural (e.g. unemployment, food insecurity, geographic isolation) vulnerabilities which have also historically undermined individual- and system-level HIV prevention [13]. CBOs are following stay-in-shelter orders and using online platforms and telephones to communicate with clients. Some of these platforms are unreliable, and clients and providers alike may encounter difficulties navigating them; many do not have access to high-speed Internet or have enough of a data allowance on their cellular phone plans.

To offer basic information about HIV prevention, CBOs are turning to social media: teaching clients about HIV testing and PrEP; reminding clients of the importance of physical distancing; and providing social support for newly diagnosed individuals. Since access to in-person HIV tests has been hampered, one CBO partner mentioned about their network, “as far as I know, no one is doing any HIV testing right now.” Another CBO offers at-home HIV test kits to high-need clients, but the number of kits available is limited. Frontline providers (e.g., PrEP navigators) are not allowed (confidential HIPAA compliant) to take client information from their offices, thus they have stopped making referrals to physicians who can prescribe PrEP. Providers have cut back on or stopped altogether making referrals to primary care. They are nonetheless providing limited harm reduction and support services, with all parties adhering to physical distancing—for example, clean syringes passed through mobile unit windows and food and other items dropped off in front of clients’ homes. Meanwhile, CBO managers are working on safety protocols and are purchasing protective materials in preparation for resuming face-to-face consultation when the stay-in-shelter order is lifted.

Implications for Practice and Research

The COVID-19 pandemic presents multifaceted challenges to HIV service CBOs, including but not limited to resource shortages, low staff morale, and disruption to patient-centered service provision. Suspending services creates budgetary shortfalls for CBOs that heavily rely on program revenues [14]. Given the skyrocketing numbers of unemployment claims in the last two weeks of March and two first weeks of April [15], many vulnerable clients may not be able to make co-payments for services, even after CBO doors are open again. CBOs expect significant declines in private donations, as also observed in the 2008 recession [16]. Now and during the stay-in-shelter period, CBOs are likely to rely on small business and individual donations and government programs. They are likely to strengthen relationships with private and public partners (e.g., other CBOs) in their communities in order to advocate for more effective government responses such as those initiated in response to the Great Depression of the 1930s [17]. The pandemic has created a substantial decline in provider morale. Many have and will continue to lose colleagues and clients to COVID-19. With limited resources and capacities, they are likely to be forced to make difficult choices as to which cases to prioritize for services [18, 19]. CBO staff will likely face layoffs and/or reduced paychecks as organizations struggle to stay open. These factors will continue to impact negatively frontline providers’ sprit, motivation, and mental health. Providers having day-to-day interactions with clients in primary care, outpatient, and prevention settings are poised to help PLWH and vulnerable individuals overcome HIV-related stigma, PrEP stigma, inadequate health insurance, and can help improve HIV testing rates [20,21,22,23,24,25]. Provider engagement of clients in referral-making processes seems to improve client access to HIV testing, PrEP, and primary care, even when provider caseloads are high, clients may lack insurance, and CBOs may fear losing clients and revenue to other CBOs [5, 26, 27]. However, in the face of COVID-19, such engaged, face-to-face interactions and referrals might not be feasible.

Community-focused research can help track the degree to which COVID-19 is disrupting CBO operations, provider behaviors, and client experiences and outcomes. The disruptions caused by COVID-19 allow us to see how the HIV care continuum has been undermined routinely by insufficient concrete and human organizational resources, and by failures to follow up and track provider referrals to HIV services. To demonstrate how structural failures, highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic, prevent providers from keeping their clients on the care continuum, we must study how CBOs’ organizational supports incorporate client perspectives. COVID-19 exposed the need for research to understand how high volumes of incomplete referrals—i.e. clients not accessing services to which they are referred—waste time allotted for services, increases costs, lengthen waitlists, and jeopardize health outcomes (e.g., retention in care, viral suppression) [6, 28]. Providers’ active referral-making (including subsequent coordination and tracking efforts) can facilitate clients’ timely access to needed services and reduce waste of organizational resources (e.g., staff hours, social capital) [29]. Despite the growing emphasis on person-centered care [30,31,32,33], few empirical studies have investigated the implications of person-centered care for organizations offering HIV services [34,35,36]. We also need to look at current literature and identify not only gaps but the limitations of past research (e.g. lack of large-scale qualitative evidence and limited involvement of clients and providers). Doing so should help researchers address the limited evidence on referral-making and linkage practices that could help clients access the HIV services to which they are referred (“referral completion”), and, ultimately, end the HIV pandemic within this decade.

References

  1. 1.

    Fauci AS, Redfield RR, Sigounas G, Weahkee MD, Giroir BP. Ending the HIV epidemic: a plan for the United States. JAMA. 2019;321(9):844–5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.1343.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Health Equity. https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/healthequity/index.htm. Published August 28, 2019. Accessed September 25, 2019.

  3. 3.

    Orgera K, Artiga S. Disparities in Health and Health Care: Five Key Questions and Answers. Henry J Kais Fam Found. August 2018. https://www.kff.org/disparities-policy/issue-brief/disparities-in-health-and-health-care-five-key-questions-and-answers/. Accessed September 25, 2019.

  4. 4.

    DiNenno EA, Prejean J, Irwin K, et al. Recommendations for HIV screening of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men — United States, 2017. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66:830–2. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6631a3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. High Impact HIV Prevention: Overview of Select Interventions & Strategies. Washington, DC: Danya International; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Akbari A, Mayhew A, Al-Alawi MA, et al. Interventions to improve outpatient referrals from primary care to secondary care. Cochrane database Syst Rev. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Craw JA, Gardner LI, Marks G, et al. Brief Strengths-based case management promotes entry into HIV medical care: results of the antiretroviral treatment access study-II. JAIDS J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2008;47(5):597. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0b013e3181684c51.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Recommendations to increase testing and identification of HIV-positive individuals through partner counseling and referral services. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33(2):S88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.04.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Pinto RM, Witte SS, Filippone P, Choi CJ, Wall M. Interprofessional collaboration and on-the-job training improve access to HIV Testing, HIV primary care, and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). AIDS Educ Prev. 2018;30(6):474–89. https://doi.org/10.1521/aeap.2018.30.6.474.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Pinto RM, Kay ES, Choi CJ, Wall MM. Interprofessional collaboration improves linkages to primary care: a longitudinal analysis. AIDS Care EPub. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2019.1668537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Pinto RM, Kay ES, Choi CJ, Wall MM. Interprofessional Collaboration improves the odds of educating patients about PrEP over time. J Gen Intern Med. EPub. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05616-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Witte SS, Pinto RM, Filippone PL, Choi CJ, Wall M. (in preparation) More is better: Active and passive referral-making increases linkages to HIV primary care.

  13. 13.

    CDC. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/hiv.html. Published February 11, 2020. Accessed April 15, 2020.

  14. 14.

    Smith SR, Lipsky M. Nonprofits for Hire: The Welfare State in the Age of Contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Casselman B, Cohen P. A widening toll on jobs: ‘This thing is going to come for us all.’ The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/business/economy/coronavirus-unemployment-claims.html. Published April 2, 2020. Accessed April 14, 2020.

  16. 16.

    Park S, Mosley J. Nonprofit growth and decline during economic uncertainty. Hum Serv Organ Manag Leadersh Gov. 2017;41(5):515–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2017.1347539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Leiby J. A History of Social Welfare and Social Work in the United States. New York, NY: Columbia University Press; 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Brodkin EZ. Reflections on Street-Level Bureaucracy: Past, Present, and Future. Public Adm Rev. 2012;72(6):940–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02657.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Fink S. The hardest questions doctors may face: Who will be saved? Who won’t? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/21/us/coronavirus-medical-rationing.html. Published March 21, 2020. Accessed April 14, 2020.

  20. 20.

    Cook CL, Lutz BJ, Young M-E, Hall A, Stacciarini J-M. Perspectives of Linkage to Care Among People Diagnosed With HIV. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2015;26(2):110–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jana.2014.11.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Philbin MM, Tanner AE, DuVal A, et al. HIV testing, care referral and linkage to care intervals affect time to engagement in care for newly diagnosed HIV-infected adolescents in fifteen adolescent medicine clinics in the United States 1999. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016;72(2):222–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0000000000000958.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Aziz M, Smith KY. Challenges and Successes in Linking HIV-Infected Women to Care in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52:S231–S237237. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciq047.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Bauman LJ, Braunstein S, Calderon Y, et al. Barriers and facilitators of linkage to HIV primary care in New York City 1999. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;64(01):S20–S2626. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0b013e3182a99c19.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Dombrowski JC, Simoni JM, Katz DA, Golden MR. Barriers to HIV Care and Treatment Among Participants in a Public Health HIV Care Relinkage Program. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2015;29(5):279–87. https://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2014.0346.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Arya M, Patel S, Kumar D, et al. Why Physicians Don’t Ask: Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Barriers to HIV Testing—Making a Case for a Patient-Initiated Campaign. J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care JIAPAC. 2016;15(4):306–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325957414557268.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Pinto RM, Chen Y, Park S. A client-centered relational framework on barriers to the integration of HIV and substance use services: a systematic review. Harm Reduct J. 2019;16(1):71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-019-0347-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Pinto RM, Witte SS, Filippone PL, Baird KL, Whitman WR. Factors that influence linkages to HIV Continuum of Care Services: Implications for multi-Level interventions. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(11):1355. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14111355.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Henly JR, Lambert SJ. Unpredictable Work Timing in Retail Jobs: Implications for Employee Work-Life Conflict. ILR Rev. 2014;67(3):986–1016. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793914537458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Mehta SH, Lucas GM, Mirel LB, et al. Limited effectiveness of antiviral treatment for hepatitis C in an urban HIV clinic. AIDS. 2006;20(18):2361. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0b013e32801086da.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Epstein RM, Street RL. The Values and Value of Patient-Centered Care. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9(2):100–3. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1239.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Park S. Beyond patient-centred care: A conceptual framework of co-production mechanisms with vulnerable groups in health and social service settings. Public Manag Rev. 2020;22(3):452–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1601241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222274/.

  33. 33.

    Berwick DM. What ‘patient-centered’ should mean: Confessions of an extremist. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(4):w555–w56565. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.28.4.w555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Byrd KK, Hardnett F, Clay PG, et al. Retention in HIV care among participants in the patient-centered hiv care model: a collaboration between community-based pharmacists and primary medical providers. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2019;33(2):58–66. https://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2018.0216.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Beach MC, Keruly J, Moore RD. Is the quality of the patient-provider relationship associated with better adherence and health outcomes for patients with HIV? J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(6):661. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00399.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Park S. Co-production in the treatment of substance use disorder and its relationship to clinic’s service output patterns. Soc Serv Rev. 2020;94(3):452–74.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to convey our enormous appreciation for our community partners, Richard Yancy, HIV Prevention Specialist (Matrix Human Services) and Leon Golson, Director of Prevention Programs (UNIFIED – HIV Health and Beyond), who contributed critical information and support for the writing of this piece.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sunggeun Park.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pinto, R.M., Park, S. COVID-19 Pandemic Disrupts HIV Continuum of Care and Prevention: Implications for Research and Practice Concerning Community-Based Organizations and Frontline Providers. AIDS Behav 24, 2486–2489 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-020-02893-3

Download citation