Data Analysis
HIV disease, viral suppression, M-DEPTH depression, depressed, depression
REGRESSION, SECONDARY, HIV DISEASE
We conducted bivariate analyses to compare the study arms on baseline measures of participant characteristics (i.e., demographics, HIV disease, stage of pregnancy, depression). We assessed differences using chi-square tests for categorical variables, and two-tailed independent t-tests for continuous variables. We repeated this analysis to compare those who completed the PP assessment with those who did not.The primary analyses followed an intent-to-treat (ITT) approach; for outcomes with missing data at PP, the baseline measure of the outcome was used, and if a baseline measure was not available (e.g., pregnancy outcome), the participant was assigned the negative outcome (e.g., pregnancy did not result in a successful delivery). We chose not to use weights or imputation, given the low level of item nonresponse at the PP assessment. The primary objective of the analysis was to examine the effects of the M-DEPTH depression care intervention on maternal viral suppression at PP; the primary outcome was undetectable viral load, and the secondary outcome was amount of logTo assess the effects of the intervention on intermediary outcomes that our conceptual model (see Fig. In a secondary analysis to assess whether the intervention may have greater effects on women who were clinically depressed and in need of depression treatment at baseline, we replicated all the analyses described above with the subgroup of participants who had clinical depression (PHQ-9 > 9) during the enrollment screening. We also replicated these analyses with data only from the participants who completed the PP assessment; the findings from this sensitivity analysis were essentially equivalent to the ITT analysis and thus not reported in this paper.We used only bivariate regression models to examine intervention effects on outcomes that were highly positively skewed in both study arms (i.e., pregnancy outcome, location of delivery, child HIV testing and status, child use of NVP and cotrimoxazole), and resulted in no group differences.All group comparisons included an adjustment for clustering within site. For estimation, we used Proc Surveylogistic or Proc Surveyreg in SAS 9.2 to allow for clustering.