National HIV/AIDS and Aging Awareness Day | September 18, 2026
National HIV/AIDS and Aging Awareness Day 2026: Build a Reliable Path from Awareness to Action
A credible observance helps healthcare organizations connect trusted information, accessible testing, durable HIV treatment, age-attuned primary care, medication stewardship, functional support, and closed-loop navigation for older adults living with or at risk for HIV.
Observance identity: HIV.gov identifies September 18 as National HIV/AIDS and Aging Awareness Day and describes the focus as older people with HIV and long-term survivors, together with prevention, testing, treatment, and care. This brief does not claim an official 2026 theme. Review the official HIV.gov observance page.
Recognition connected to reliable care
Use September 18 to examine whether the system can support aging with HIV
National HIV/AIDS and Aging Awareness Day can be more than a message on a calendar. For healthcare executives, it is a prompt to test whether the organization has adapted to a reality created by effective treatment: many people with HIV are living into older age, while other adults may acquire or be diagnosed with HIV later in life. The operating challenge is not simply to add one more specialty appointment. It is to make HIV care, primary care, pharmacy, behavioral health, functional support, social services, and community partnership work as one understandable route.
The route often crosses organizational boundaries. A person may enter through primary care, an emergency department, a community testing program, a specialty clinic, a pharmacy, a hospital discharge, or a social-service partner. Each entry point can be technically correct while the total experience remains fragmented. When responsibility changes hands, the person may be asked to repeat sensitive information, reconcile conflicting instructions, or determine which clinician owns a concern that does not fit neatly into one specialty.
Recent qualitative work in Ontario found that older adults living with HIV described gaps in provider expertise, fragmented care, and time constraints, while emphasizing trust, culturally competent care, and team-based models.2 The study included 12 participants in one Canadian city and used an arts-informed approach, so it does not estimate prevalence. It does make the lived consequences of fragmentation visible and supports direct patient participation in redesign.
International consensus work similarly argues that complexity and frailty should not be treated as age-limited labels and that person-centered models must be adapted to local needs and resources.15 This is expert consensus rather than comparative effectiveness evidence. Its value is architectural: it asks leaders to organize around the person and the pattern of need, not around a rigid age threshold or a collection of disconnected service lines.
Trusted
Information, outreach, and clinical conversations protect dignity, privacy, autonomy, and the right to receive care without stigma.
Reachable
People can find testing, treatment, primary care, pharmacy, behavioral health, and navigation through accessible channels.
Integrated
HIV, multimorbidity, medications, function, mental health, social needs, and personal goals are reviewed together.
Accountable
A named team accepts each handoff, unresolved work remains visible, and completion is confirmed rather than assumed.
Scoping reviews show why integration matters while also illustrating the limits of available evidence. A 2026 review of 12 studies from sub-Saharan Africa reported an earlier and substantial burden of non-AIDS comorbidities among people aging with HIV, with wide variation across conditions and studies.3 A separate review of 23 Peruvian studies found frequent cognitive, mental-health, cardiovascular, and metabolic concerns, but all included studies came from Lima and most were cross-sectional or retrospective.1 Neither review provides a universal prevalence estimate. Together they support a disciplined local question: which conditions, functions, access barriers, and medication risks must the local pathway be able to recognize and coordinate?
The leadership obligation is to prevent the observance from increasing demand for a route that remains unclear. Before promoting a call to action, leaders should verify the entry point, service hours, language and disability access, privacy practices, referral acceptance rules, after-hours options, escalation contacts, and ownership of follow-up. If the organization cannot explain what happens after a person reaches out, communications should be narrowed until the receiving system is ready.
Evidence with controlled claims
Use a mixed evidence set to design the pathway, not to manufacture certainty
The selected evidence set contains 16 peer-reviewed records reviewed through the University of Phoenix Library and listed newest first. Five records primarily inform care integration and complexity; four inform medication safety, function, frailty, sleep, or falls; five inform stigma, access, social support, or rural engagement; and two inform quality of life or resilience. Designs include scoping and focused reviews, qualitative interviews, cross-sectional and cohort analyses, a prospective multicenter intervention, a pilot randomized allocation across remotely delivered interventions, a national survey, and expert consensus.
This mix is useful because the executive problem is multidimensional. No single study can explain the full operating route. Reviews identify recurring comorbidity and evidence gaps. Qualitative studies reveal how trust, stigma, identity, independence, and fragmented relationships shape the experience of care. Observational studies identify associations that deserve local investigation. Intervention and feasibility studies suggest practical models that can be tested, but their context and design do not justify guarantees of effect.
| Evidence group | Count | Appropriate use | Do not infer |
|---|---|---|---|
| Care integration and complexity | 5 | Map coordination needs, care-team roles, comorbidity review, and person-centered design. | That one model will improve outcomes in every health system. |
| Medication safety, function, frailty, sleep, and falls | 4 | Identify candidate review domains, safety signals, and multidisciplinary ownership. | A universal screening frequency, causal pathway, or treatment protocol. |
| Stigma, access, social support, and rural engagement | 5 | Design privacy, outreach, navigation, community partnership, and listening methods. | That an association in one population predicts an individual outcome. |
| Quality of life and resilience | 2 | Keep person-reported outcomes and economic, social, and psychological context visible. | That resilience should shift responsibility from the system to the individual. |
Evidence boundary: The bars are exact counts of selected records, not effect sizes, quality grades, or certainty ratings. Each record appears in one display group even when it spans several domains. This implementation-oriented selection is not a formal systematic review, a clinical guideline, or a substitute for local evidence review.
Medication review belongs inside the pathway, not beside it
Medication complexity can emerge from effective HIV treatment combined with medications for multiple chronic conditions. In the HAILO observational cohort, polypharmacy excluding antiretroviral therapy was associated with slow gait speed and recurrent falls among people with HIV aged 40 and older; hyperpolypharmacy was associated with a still higher odds of recurrent falls.11 The study is observational, so it cannot show that polypharmacy caused these outcomes. It supports a coordinated review that connects medication count, indication, interactions, adherence, gait, falls, and the person's goals.
A 2026 prospective multicenter study across nine Spanish hospitals tested a Capacity-Motivation-Opportunity pharmaceutical-care model among 154 people with HIV aged 50 and older. After 24 weeks, the report described improved adherence to concomitant medication and fewer participants simultaneously meeting the study's three high-risk pharmacotherapy criteria.4 The study did not include a concurrent control group and occurred in a specific health-system context. It provides a feasible model for stratified pharmacy involvement, not proof that the same outcome will occur elsewhere.
Alcohol use adds another reason to connect reviews. A focused 2025 review identified 14 studies of adults with HIV aged 50 and older and found that greater alcohol use was linked with frailty, fractures, and falls across the included observational literature.5 The authors emphasized limited longitudinal evidence and the observational nature of most studies. The appropriate operating response is respectful screening and qualified care through approved processes, not an assumption that alcohol explains an individual person's functional status.
Function and quality of life require their own signals
Twenty-four people living with HIV and screening positive for frailty in a United Kingdom clinic described frailty as restrictions that affected physical, psychological, and social well-being. Participants prioritized maintaining independence, slowing progression, and receiving holistic care.6 This qualitative study cannot determine how common those priorities are across populations. It shows why a pathway should ask about what the person wants to preserve, not merely record a frailty label.
A national Australian survey of 319 people with HIV aged 50 and older found lower multidimensional quality-of-life scores among respondents reporting food insecurity, HIV-related stigma, isolation from the HIV community, or difficulty accessing non-HIV health services.14 The cross-sectional design cannot establish direction or causation, and self-selection may affect results. Still, it makes an executive point: clinical access and social conditions must be visible in the same dashboard rather than managed as unrelated programs.
Sleep is another domain where overgeneralization would be harmful. A study of 556 older adults in Uganda, including 271 people with HIV, did not find statistically significant sleep differences by HIV status. Depression symptoms were associated with poorer sleep outcomes across the sample.7 The analysis is cross-sectional and country-specific. It supports broad, person-centered assessment while cautioning against attributing every concern to HIV.
Stigma and isolation can obstruct entry and continuity
In the HAALSI cohort in rural South Africa, higher social-stigma scores were associated with lower odds of HIV testing, and selected stigma levels were associated with lower antiretroviral treatment uptake among people living with HIV.13 Another linked cross-sectional analysis in rural South Africa associated nondisclosure to close family, residence in the poorest households, and selected medication patterns with detectable viral load among older adults.10 These observational associations do not establish causation, do not transfer automatically to United States settings, and must never be used to pressure disclosure. They support stigma-safe services, economic and access review, voluntary support, and careful interpretation of local data.
Qualitative studies add depth. Interviews with 22 adults aged 65 and older in Sweden showed that aging could sometimes overshadow HIV in daily life, while stigma and socioemotional concerns remained important for some participants.8 Interviews with 40 adults aged 51 to 69 in the Newark metropolitan area highlighted the roles of friends, family, support groups, stigma, and fragmented relationships.9 Convenience and purposive samples limit generalization. Their value is to prompt structured listening that allows different experiences to coexist.
For rural older adults, a pilot study of four remotely delivered interventions enrolled 61 participants in the southern United States and reported high participation, retention, and acceptability, with promising preliminary changes across several outcomes.12 The small sample, short follow-up, and assignment to varying numbers of interventions prevent strong effectiveness conclusions. It supports testing remote options as part of a choice architecture, with technology support and alternatives for people who cannot or do not want to use them.
Finally, a study of 174 predominantly African American adults with HIV in the Deep South found resilience independently associated with mental health-related quality of life after adjustment for measured confounders.16 Cross-sectional data cannot establish direction. Leaders should not use resilience language to excuse structural barriers. The constructive use is to include strengths, autonomy, peer connection, and person-defined well-being while continuing to repair the system.
A closed-loop aging and HIV continuum
Build one visible route while preserving individualized clinical judgment
The pathway begins when an older adult seeks information, testing, prevention, treatment, or help with an existing concern. It must also work when the need appears indirectly through a primary-care visit, inpatient stay, medication question, fall, behavioral-health encounter, or social-service request. The person should not need to know the organizational chart. The first team should provide an approved first step, protect privacy, and transfer responsibility to a receiving owner through a visible handoff.
Learning loop: patient and staff feedback, unresolved exceptions, access differences, medication concerns, and functional signals return to the pathway owner for correction.
Process boundary: This is an operating model, not a clinical sequence. Urgency, testing method, prevention options, treatment, reassessment, and referral depend on current guidance, individual circumstances, local policy, and qualified professional judgment. People may enter, move, pause, or return at different points.
Trusted entry
Every approved entry point should use plain language and avoid assumptions about sexuality, gender, relationship status, age, substance use, or past care. Staff need a privacy-safe method to ask what the person wants, identify urgent needs, explain choices, and connect to qualified services. Outreach should be paired with real capacity. Leaders should verify same-day and after-hours options, appointment lead time, transportation, interpretation, digital access, financial navigation, and accessibility before increasing message volume.
Linkage and treatment continuity
A referral is not a completed connection. Define which team receives the result or request, how acceptance appears in the record, when outreach occurs, how unsuccessful contact is handled, and when an exception escalates. Use the least sensitive information necessary across operational channels. Never create a workflow that exposes HIV status to staff who do not need it or that treats family disclosure as a condition of care.
Integrated aging review
Do not force the person to choose between HIV expertise and age-attuned care. Establish shared responsibilities for chronic conditions, medication reconciliation, interactions, adherence, cognition, mood, sleep, mobility, falls, substance use, sexual health, sensory needs, and personal goals. The review should distinguish a screening signal from a diagnosis and a recommendation from an agreed plan. When multiple clinicians are involved, the person should know whom to contact and which team coordinates the whole plan.
Navigation, support, and confirmation
Navigation should convert a plan into reachable next steps. The coordinator can identify barriers, offer approved choices, arrange warm handoffs, and keep incomplete work visible. Completion means more than placing an order. It may require confirmation that the person received the result, understood the next step, obtained medication, reached the appointment, or chose not to proceed after an informed conversation. The pathway should respect refusal and changing preferences while documenting who remains available.
Qualitative root-cause structure
Investigate contributors to fragmented care before selecting an intervention
Teams should not assume that every missed connection has the same cause. A delayed follow-up may reflect an unclear handoff, a stigmatizing encounter, transportation, a medication burden, caregiver demands, digital exclusion, or a deliberate personal choice. Use structured listening and local process evidence to distinguish what happened. The fishbone below is an unranked hypothesis map, not a finding about any person or organization.
Interpretation boundary: These categories synthesize themes and operating implications from the selected literature. They are not ranked, causal, exhaustive, or suitable for diagnosing an individual. Local teams should validate them with the people who use and operate the pathway.
Validate the map through separate and joint listening. Patients and caregivers can describe whether the entry point felt safe, the next step was clear, and coordination reduced or added burden. Frontline staff can identify workarounds, queue ambiguity, and missing decision support. Community partners can explain where referrals arrive without enough information or where eligibility rules create avoidable loops. Pharmacy, primary care, HIV specialists, behavioral health, rehabilitation, social work, and data teams can show where no one sees the whole pattern.
Do not turn a fishbone session into a search for individual fault. Select one recurring failure mode, trace a small sample of real episodes using protected data, and identify the condition that made the failure likely. Test a change at the level of the system: a defined owner, a shared review, a warm handoff, an accessibility fix, a pharmacy consultation trigger, or a visible exception queue. Measure whether the route changed without claiming that a short pilot proves a patient outcome.
Person-centered operating architecture
Connect six capabilities around one accountable plan
An integrated model does not require every service to sit in one department. It requires shared goals, explicit decision rights, timely information, reachable expertise, and a method for resolving disagreement. The person and their priorities belong at the center. Each capability below has a different contribution, but none can safely assume that another team will close the loop.
Reliability rule: Every transition has a sending owner, a receiving owner, an acknowledgment, an escalation path, and a completion signal.
Design boundary: This is a governance framework, not a staffing standard or clinical protocol. Team composition, scope of practice, information exchange, consent, and escalation must reflect local resources, law, policy, professional standards, and community input.
Make shared work explicit
Define which clinician owns the HIV treatment plan, which clinician coordinates chronic conditions, who reconciles medications, who responds to functional or cognitive signals, who addresses behavioral-health needs, and who supports access barriers. Shared ownership is useful only when the handoff rules are visible. A care plan should state the current priorities, next actions, responsible roles, time windows, and what the person should do when a concern changes.
Design for constrained capacity
Integrated care can fail if a new screening or outreach effort creates work without adding response capacity. Model likely demand before launch. Review specialist access, pharmacy time, care-management caseload, interpreter availability, transportation resources, community-partner capacity, data support, and after-hours coverage. If capacity is limited, choose a narrower population or one failure mode and make the route reliable before expanding it.
Protect privacy while enabling coordination
Information should move because it is needed for care or operations, not because technology makes it available. Engage privacy, legal, information-security, clinical, and community representatives in pathway design. Use role-based access, minimum-necessary data, approved communication channels, consent processes where required, and audit mechanisms. Make it possible to coordinate care without exposing sensitive information to unrelated staff or community partners.
Decision-grade measurement
Measure whether the route is usable, owned, and complete
Campaign reach is not pathway reliability. Impressions, event attendance, and distributed materials may describe communication activity, but they do not show whether a person reached testing, entered care, maintained treatment, received an integrated review, or overcame a barrier. A pilot dashboard should pair process, outcome, access, equity, safety, and workforce signals while keeping definitions visible.
| Signal | Local specification | Owner and cadence | Source | Interpretation caution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trusted entry | Eligible contacts receiving an approved first step, privacy-safe explanation, and documented choice within the local time window | Access lead, weekly | Scheduling, contact, and service logs | Documentation may overstate the quality of the conversation. |
| Closed-loop connection | Accepted referrals with receiving acknowledgment and a completed, declined, or escalated disposition | Navigation lead, weekly | Referral and work-queue records | Completion does not prove that the service met the person's need. |
| Integrated review | Pilot participants receiving the locally defined HIV, comorbidity, medication, function, behavioral-health, and goal review | Clinical owner, monthly | Structured documentation and sampled audit | A completed field does not establish clinical appropriateness. |
| Medication plan alignment | Reviewed episodes with reconciled lists, resolved discrepancies, assigned prescriber actions, and communicated monitoring plan | Pharmacy lead, weekly | Reconciliation and intervention records | More interventions can reflect better detection or greater baseline complexity. |
| Person-reported usability | Brief approved questions on clarity, trust, burden, access, and whether the next owner was visible | Experience lead, monthly | Survey and structured interviews | Small or nonresponse-prone samples are not prevalence estimates. |
| Access and equity review | Selected entry, completion, delay, and experience measures examined across locally governed access dimensions | Equity and data leads, monthly | Linked operational data with small-cell protection | Differences do not explain cause and may reflect missing or misclassified data. |
| Unresolved work | Open referrals, unacknowledged handoffs, delayed medication actions, missed follow-up, and escalations beyond local expectations | Operational sponsor, weekly | Exception queue and case review | Counts require stable inclusion rules and changing demand context. |
| Workforce burden | Caseload, rework, overtime signals, unavailable services, and brief staff-reported friction reviewed together | Operational sponsor, weekly | Staffing data, queues, and team pulse | No single workload measure represents complexity, safety, or well-being. |
Measurement boundary: These are candidate pilot specifications, not national benchmarks. Denominators, exclusions, time windows, targets, privacy controls, data-quality rules, and response expectations require local approval. Never use the dashboard to grade individual patients or pressure disclosure.
Define the denominator before interpreting movement
A percentage has meaning only when the eligible population, observation window, exclusions, and missing data are defined. Decide whether the denominator is outreach contacts, completed tests, new diagnoses, people enrolled in the pilot, accepted referrals, medication reviews, or unresolved cases. Keep the definition beside the result. If outreach changes the population entering the pathway, annotate the change rather than comparing rates as though nothing else moved.
Pair numbers with structured listening
Operational data can show where a referral stopped, but not always why. Ask patients whether the message was relevant, privacy was protected, choices were clear, and the plan fit their goals. Ask staff which handoff created rework and which resources were unreachable. Ask community partners whether referrals arrived with consent, usable information, and realistic expectations. Report themes as themes and preserve contradictory experiences.
A bounded implementation agenda
Use 90 days to map, test, learn, and make an explicit decision
The pilot should repair one bounded route, not attempt to solve every need related to HIV and aging. A practical scope might be transitions between an HIV clinic and primary care, medication reconciliation after hospital discharge, an older-adult testing and navigation route, or a rural telehealth connection supported by community partners. The charter should name an executive sponsor, clinical owner, HIV-care lead, primary-care partner, pharmacist, navigator, behavioral or functional-health partner, data and privacy leads, and a patient or community input method.
| Window | Primary owners | Dependencies | Milestone |
|---|---|---|---|
| Days 0 to 30 | Sponsor, clinical and HIV leads, primary care, pharmacy, navigation, privacy, data, patient or community partners | Approved scope; current guidance; service inventory; privacy and accessibility review | Signed charter, current-state route, ownership map, definitions, scenarios, and stop rules |
| Days 31 to 60 | Operational lead, clinicians, pharmacy, behavioral and functional health, navigators, community partners | Training complete; queues active; receiving teams and escalation contacts confirmed | Bounded launch with weekly exception review and documented repairs |
| Days 61 to 90 | Sponsor, quality, equity, privacy, workforce, finance, clinical and patient partners | Sufficient data quality; feedback; capacity and balancing-measure review | Documented scale, adapt, pause, or stop decision with named owners and dates |
Timeline boundary: Ninety days is an implementation learning window, not a promise of viral, functional, quality-of-life, or utilization impact. Reduce scope, extend, or pause when governance, privacy, workforce, data quality, service capacity, or patient-safety prerequisites are not met.
Days 0 to 30: define the route and expose dependencies
Select the pilot boundary and map the current journey from first contact to confirmed follow-through. Include older adults living with HIV or community representatives in a protected, compensated, and meaningful role when feasible. Inventory testing and prevention entry points, HIV and primary-care capacity, pharmacy support, behavioral and functional-health resources, transportation, interpretation, disability access, affordability support, peer programs, rural options, after-hours contacts, and community-partner eligibility rules.
Approve the minimum operating tools: a privacy-safe entry script, consent and information-sharing rules, a warm-handoff standard, receiving-team service levels, an integrated review template, a medication-reconciliation workflow, a person-owned plan, a visible exception queue, and a dashboard dictionary. Test the route with realistic scenarios. Include a person newly seeking testing, a long-term survivor with multiple prescribers, a rural patient with limited broadband, a recent hospital discharge, a fall and medication concern, an interpreter need, and a person who declines a proposed next step.
Days 31 to 60: launch small and review every exception
Start in the bounded setting and review unresolved work weekly. Examine referral rejections, delayed appointments, unacknowledged results, medication discrepancies, missed functional concerns, privacy issues, technology failures, transportation barriers, and staff workarounds. Repair the route with version control over scripts, forms, roles, escalation paths, and definitions. If new demand exceeds clinical, pharmacy, navigation, or community-partner capacity, narrow the pilot rather than allowing hidden queues to grow.
Conduct brief structured listening with people who used the route. Ask whether the first contact felt respectful, the next owner was clear, repeated storytelling was reduced, remote options were usable, and the plan reflected personal priorities. Ask staff which step caused duplicate work and which decision lacked an owner. Treat these responses as explanatory evidence, not as representative rates unless the sampling design supports that conclusion.
Days 61 to 90: evaluate the whole system and decide
Review entry, closed-loop connection, integrated assessment, medication-plan alignment, person-reported usability, access differences, unresolved work, privacy events, and workforce burden together. Examine denominator quality and missing data before interpreting trends. A short uncontrolled pilot can show feasibility, adoption, and process change. It usually cannot establish causation or durable clinical outcomes.
Make the executive decision explicit. Scale when the route is safe, trusted, used, owned, feasible, and measurable. Adapt when the idea is sound but an entry point, handoff, role, technology, or access assumption failed. Pause when privacy, capacity, or data quality prevents responsible operation or interpretation. Stop when burden or risk exceeds likely value. Every decision should name the next owner, resources, date, and conditions for reconsideration.
Leadership close: awareness is credible when the pathway works
National HIV/AIDS and Aging Awareness Day can make healthy aging, long-term survivorship, later-life prevention, testing, and care more visible. Visibility matters, but it is not the final deliverable. The final deliverable is a respectful route that people can find and use, where clinicians coordinate rather than compete, medication and functional concerns receive attention, social barriers become actionable, and responsibility remains visible until the next step is confirmed.
The evidence does not offer one universal blueprint. It shows recurring needs and important limits: comorbidity patterns differ by setting; qualitative studies illuminate experience but do not estimate prevalence; observational associations do not prove causation; pilot interventions require larger and longer evaluation; and every model depends on local capacity. The executive opportunity is to choose a bounded starting point, make decision rights visible, test the route with the people who use it, and carry the learning beyond September 18.
For practical public information, review the HIV.gov resource on aging with HIV. Related executive observance briefs include Older Americans Month 2026 and Southern HIV/AIDS Awareness Day 2026.
Peer-reviewed evidence
References
The references are listed newest first. Each record was individually checked in the University of Phoenix Library for peer-reviewed status, citation metadata, abstract, design, population, and limitations. DOI links lead to public publisher or resolver records.
- Nolasco M, Hsieh E, Garcia PJ, Diaz MM. A Review of Chronic Comorbidities in People Living With HIV in Peru. Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care. 2026;25:1-14. doi:10.1177/23259582261470497.
- Kokorelias KM, Posa S, Valentine D, et al. Beyond the Prescription: An Arts-Based Study of Older Adults Living With HIV and Their Primary Care Experiences in Ontario. Health Expectations. 2026;29(2):e70610. doi:10.1111/hex.70610.
- Gobir IB, Niyang PM, Mwantiyi B, et al. Aging-related comorbidities among people living with HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review. Discover Public Health. 2026;23:291. doi:10.1186/s12982-026-01630-w.
- Roldán Galnares M, Morillo-Verdugo R, Robustillo-Cortes MA, et al. Impact of a CMO-Based Pharmaceutical Care Model on 3-HIT Criteria in Older People Living with HIV: The DIS3HIT Project. Patient Preference and Adherence. 2026;20:569460. doi:10.2147/PPA.S569460.
- Satre DD, Metz VE, Van Doren N, Silverberg MJ, Lam JO. Alcohol Use and Its Associations With Frailty, Fractures, and Falls Among Older Adults With HIV. Alcohol Research: Current Reviews. 2025;45(1):08. doi:10.35946/arcr.v45.1.08.
- St Clair-Sullivan N, Vera JH, Maddocks M, et al. We are fragile, but we are strong: A qualitative study of perspectives, experiences and priority outcomes for people living with HIV and frailty. HIV Medicine. 2025;26(3):339-349. doi:10.1111/hiv.13722.
- Yoo-Jeong M, Ratnayake A, Tong Y, et al. Correlates of Sleep Health among Older-Age People with and without HIV in Uganda. AIDS and Behavior. 2024;28(12):4179-4187. doi:10.1007/s10461-024-04512-x.
- Sundler AJ, Lund M, van Dulmen S, Carlsson Lalloo E. Exploring experiences of ageing in older adults living with HIV in Sweden: a qualitative study. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being. 2024;19(1):2393752. doi:10.1080/17482631.2024.2393752.
- Gervolino SC, Krause KD, Halkitis PN. The role of social support networks in a sample of older adults living with HIV: the GOLD studies. AIDS Care. 2024;36(9):1302-1309. doi:10.1080/09540121.2024.2312877.
- Chinogurei C, Manne-Goehler J, Kahn K, et al. Socio-Behavioural Barriers to Viral Suppression in the Older Adult Population in Rural South Africa. AIDS and Behavior. 2024;28(7):2307-2313. doi:10.1007/s10461-024-04328-9.
- Kosana P, Wu K, Tassiopoulos K, et al. Polypharmacy Is Associated With Slow Gait Speed and Recurrent Falls in Older People With HIV. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2024;78(6):1608-1616. doi:10.1093/cid/ciad782.
- Walsh JL, Quinn KG, Hirshfield S, et al. Acceptability, Feasibility, and Preliminary Impact of 4 Remotely-Delivered Interventions for Rural Older Adults Living with HIV. AIDS and Behavior. 2024;28(4):1401-1414. doi:10.1007/s10461-023-04227-5.
- Mahlalela NB, Manne-Goehler J, Ohene-Kwofie D, et al. The Association Between HIV-Related Stigma and the Uptake of HIV Testing and ART Among Older Adults in Rural South Africa: Findings from the HAALSI Cohort Study. AIDS and Behavior. 2024;28(3):1104-1121. doi:10.1007/s10461-023-04222-w.
- Dawe J, Cassano D, Keane R, et al. Quality of life among people living with HIV aged 50 years and over in Australia: Identifying opportunities to support better ageing. HIV Medicine. 2023;24(12):1253-1267. doi:10.1111/hiv.13592.
- Barber TJ, Crabtree B, Cortes CP, et al. Practical management of complexity in older people with HIV: approaching an international consensus. AIDS Care. 2023;35(8):1149-1153. doi:10.1080/09540121.2023.2190956.
- Hopkins CN, Lee CA, Lambert CC, et al. Psychological resilience is an independent correlate of health-related quality of life in middle-aged and older adults with HIV in the Deep South. Journal of Health Psychology. 2022;27(13):2909-2921. doi:10.1177/13591053211072430.