T correlation. Electronic adherence measures included overall adherence (recorded doses divided by expected doses in the monitoring period), proportions adherent above thresholds of 80 and 95 , and proportion with a 72-hour period without a recorded dose.Power Calculations and Statistical MethodsBased on our pilot experience [8], we estimated that a 20 increase in the average HIV RNA suppression
T correlation. Electronic adherence measures included overall adherence (recorded doses divided by expected doses in the monitoring period), proportions adherent above thresholds of 80 and 95 , and proportion with a 72-hour period without a recorded dose.Power Calculations and Statistical MethodsBased on our pilot experience [8], we estimated that a 20 increase in the average HIV RNA suppression
Phase and baseline in the SAT arm, while the coefficient X3 represented thedifference between DAART and SAT in the odds of viral suppression during the intervention phase versus baseline. The model accounted for the intra-person dependency of observations using the generalized estimating equation (GEE) approach [13] for parameter estimation and assuming a uniform correlation between any pair of re
Erapy, and had received methadone or buprenorphine for 3 weeks at the OTP with no plans to discontinue. We also required verbal approval from participants' HIV providers and confirmation of active insurance coverage for ART. Exclusion criteria included ART dosed more frequently than twice daily, use of liquid medication, and use of a regimen that was predicted to have fewer than 1.5 active drugs
Erapy, and had received methadone or buprenorphine for 3 weeks at the OTP with no plans to discontinue. We also required verbal approval from participants' HIV providers and confirmation of active insurance coverage for ART. Exclusion criteria included ART dosed more frequently than twice daily, use of liquid medication, and use of a regimen that was predicted to have fewer than 1.5 active drugs
N ( ) Homeless, self-described, n ( ) Receiving public assistance or social security disability, n ( ) Employed, n ( ) CES-D short-form scorea, median (IQR) 44 (85) 8 (15) 47 (42?2) 29 (56) 20 (39) 41 (79) 8 (15) 11 (5?6) 44 (80) 11 (20) 47 (41?1) 27 (49) 12 (23) 50 (91) 8 (15) 11 (6?5) 19 (37) 17 (33) 4 (8) 7 (13) 5 (10) 27 (52) 20 (36) 18 (33) 4 (7) 7 (13) 6 (11) 24 (44)Substance abuse relatedDu
N ( ) Homeless, self-described, n ( ) Receiving public assistance or social security disability, n ( ) Employed, n ( ) CES-D short-form scorea, median (IQR) 44 (85) 8 (15) 47 (42?2) 29 (56) 20 (39) 41 (79) 8 (15) 11 (5?6) 44 (80) 11 (20) 47 (41?1) 27 (49) 12 (23) 50 (91) 8 (15) 11 (6?5) 19 (37) 17 (33) 4 (8) 7 (13) 5 (10) 27 (52) 20 (36) 18 (33) 4 (7) 7 (13) 6 (11) 24 (44)Substance abuse relatedDu
N ( ) Homeless, self-described, n ( ) Receiving public assistance or social security disability, n ( ) Employed, n ( ) CES-D short-form scorea, median (IQR) 44 (85) 8 (15) 47 (42?2) 29 (56) 20 (39) 41 (79) 8 (15) 11 (5?6) 44 (80) 11 (20) 47 (41?1) 27 (49) 12 (23) 50 (91) 8 (15) 11 (6?5) 19 (37) 17 (33) 4 (8) 7 (13) 5 (10) 27 (52) 20 (36) 18 (33) 4 (7) 7 (13) 6 (11) 24 (44)Substance abuse relatedDu