QUALIDADE DE VIDA EM PACIENTES SOROPOSITIVOS DE UM CENTRO DE REFERÊNCIA NO SUL DO BRASIL

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate which factors are associated to quality of life in HIV/AIDS patients, in a reference center in the south of Brazil. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study developed in the Serviço de AssistênciaEspecializada (SAE) in HIV/AIDS. Six-hundred and twenty-five patients aged 18 years or above were interviewed. A questionnaire assessing for sociodemographic variables was used. Information regarding psychoactive substance use was obtained through the ASSIST 2.0; depression and anxiety were evaluated through the HAD Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale 4. The WHOQOL-HIV Bref was used to evaluate quality of life. Multivariate analysis was carried out through linear regression. Results: Quality of life was significantly associated with gender, age, schooling, paid work, socioeconomic classification, steady relationship, indication of anxiety, indication of depression, abuse and dependence of psychoactive substances, support, use of antiretroviral medication, lipodystrophy, comorbidities, hospitalizations, and CD4+ cells counting. There was no association with viral load, stage of the infection, time since the diagnosis, abuse or dependence of tobacco and alcohol, mode of transmission, sexual orientation, religion, children, and color of the skin (p>0.05). Scores were lower and statistically different in every domain, in patients with indication of anxiety and depression (p<0.001). Not having a paid work and not having support were associated with worse quality of life in five of six domains (p<0.05); the exceptions were spirituality in the first level and level of independence in the second level. Women had lower scores in the psychological and spirituality domains (p<0.05), whereas patients with CD4+ lower than 350 had lower scores in the physical and level of independence domains (p<0.05). Patients who reported lipodystrophy presented worse results in the physical, psychological and level of independence domains (p<0.05). Socioeconomic classification was related to quality of life in every domain, with lower scores presented by less-favored classes (p<0.05) Conclusion: Psychosocial factors should be included in the evaluation of physical and clinical factors, given their strong association with the scores regarding quality of life