Process monitoring of an HIV treatment as prevention program in British Columbia, Canada
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 26, 2026
System for Efficacy and Cytotoxicity Screening of Inhibitors Targeting Intracellular Mycobacterium tuberculosis
Published on: April 5, 2017
Lillian Lourenço1, Viviane D Lima, Kate Heath
1*British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Providence Health Care, Vancouver, Canada; †Division of AIDS, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; ‡Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada; §British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, Canada; ‖Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, Vancouver, Canada; ¶Fraser Health Authority, Surrey, Canada; #First Nations Health Authority, West Vancouver, Canada; **Interior Health Authority, Kelowna, Canada; ††Northern Health Authority, Prince George, Canada; ‡‡Oak Tree Clinic, Provincial Health Services Authority, Vancouver, Canada; and §§Vancouver Island Health Authority, Victoria, Canada.
Background:
In light of accumulated scientific evidence of the secondary preventive benefits of antiretroviral therapy, a growing number of jurisdictions worldwide have formally started to implement HIV Treatment as Prevention (TasP) programs. To date, no gold standard for TasP program monitoring has been described. Here, we describe the design and methods applied to TasP program process monitoring in British Columbia (BC), Canada.
Methods:
Monitoring indicators were selected through a collaborative and iterative process by an interdisciplinary team including representatives from all 5 regional health authorities, the BC Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC), and the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS (BC-CfE). An initial set of 36 proposed indicators were considered for inclusion. These were ranked on the basis of 8 criteria: data quality, validity, scientific evidence, informative power of the indicator, feasibility, confidentiality, accuracy, and administrative requirement. The consolidated list of indicators was included in the final monitoring report, which was executed using linked population-level data.
Results:
A total of 13 monitoring indicators were included in the BC TasP Monitoring Report. Where appropriate, indicators were stratified by subgroups of interest, including HIV risk group and demographic characteristics. Six Monitoring Reports are generated quarterly: 1 for each of the regional health authorities and a consolidated provincial report.
Conclusions:
We have developed a comprehensive TasP process monitoring strategy using evidence-based HIV indicators derived from linked population-level data. Standardized longitudinal monitoring of TasP program initiatives is essential to optimize individual and public health outcomes and to enhance program efficiencies.
