PTCohortChild: care, health and development2018

Cognitive and physical development in HIV-positive children in South Africa and Malawi: A community-based follow-up comparison study.

L Sherr, I S Hensels, M Tomlinson and 2 others

PMID 29047149

WHAT IT FOUND

HIV-positive children in South Africa and Malawi showed lower growth, school, physical, cognitive and quality-of-life scores than HIV-negative children.

Their improvement over follow-up was mostly similar, except physical functioning improved more.

Key findings

01At baseline, HIV-positive children were more often stunted (58.8% versus 27.4%) and underweight (18.7% versus 7.1%), and had lower physical functioning (M=93.37, SD=13.37 versus M=97.00, SD=9.78), digit span (M=7.19, SD=3.87 versus M=9.03, SD=3.92) and draw-a-person (M=79.18, SD=21.39 versus M=87.08, SD=17.91) scores.

02After adjustment for country, caregiver gender, caregiver HIV status, household HIV, family sickness, food insecurity and caring for younger children, HIV-positive children were more than three times as likely to be stunted (OR, 3.25; CI, 2.05-5.15), while adjusted differences on digit span (B=-0.64, p=.092) and draw-a-person (B=-2.23, p=.23) were not significant.

03At follow-up, HIV-positive children were still more often stunted and underweight and had lower digit span, draw-a-person, educational functioning and quality-of-life scores; physical functioning was the outcome with a significant between-group difference in change over time (F(1, 729)=4.03, p=.045).

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

HIV status was based on caregiver report and not biologically confirmed, so some HIV-positive children may have been missed. HIV treatment was measured only at follow-up, so change over time in treatment could not be assessed. The sample likely included HIV-exposed but uninfected children, whose developmental trajectory is not well known. The cognitive tests were screening tools, not a gold-standard IQ measure, and many tools were not validated directly in South Africa or Malawi. Follow-up was incomplete, and children lost to follow-up differed from those retained, including younger parents, more South African residence, more informal housing, more non-attendance at school, and more food security. The study compares groups and does not test therapy, so it cannot show that any service caused the differences or improvements.

Declared interests

Eleven funding partners participated in the study: World Vision, Comic Relief, Save the Children, Firelight Foundation, Help Age, UNICEF, REPSSI, Bernard van Leer Foundation, STOP AIDS Now, AIDS Alliance and the Diana Memorial Fund. They provided access to funded community-based organisation programmes.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read the lower cognitive and physical scores as proof that HIV alone caused them, or the follow-up improvement as proof that treatment worked. HIV status was caregiver-reported, not biologically confirmed, and children received varied community services.

Read it on PubMed →