HIV-infected patients’ LSOA of residence was used to categorize patients according to residential deprivation. The ONS classification was used to categorize LSOAs as either ‘urban’ this website or ‘rural’ . The location of HIV services was established using the site’s postcode centroid (central geographical point of the postcode area). The location of each patient’s residence was established using the population weighted LSOA centroid published by the ONS . The straight-line distance between a patient’s LSOA of residence and HIV services was determined using mapinfo pro 9.0™ (PB MapInfo Corporation, North Greenbush, NY, USA). The distance to the closest HIV service was measured; this service and any other services within a radius of 5 km plus the distance to the closest service were categorized as ‘local’ (Fig. 1). Services beyond this distance were categorized as ‘non-local’. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were conducted using stata 10™ (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) to determine factors associated with use of a non-local HIV service. Sex was incorporated into the route of transmission variable rather than analysed as a separate variable in the multivariable model. The χ2-test for association was used to
supplement descriptive analyses where appropriate. In 2007, 51 108 HIV-infected patients accessed HIV care in England, of whom 46 550 (91.1%) were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. Of these, 66.2% (30 804) were male and 50.3% (23 426) were White and the median age was 40 years (range 15–90 years). The majority resided in an urban area (95%; 44 420) and 42% Regorafenib (19 461) resided in an LSOA ranked in the most deprived quintile. The triclocarban South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) had the smallest proportion of diagnosed patients living in a highly deprived area (10%; 205/2147) and the North East SHA the highest (60%; 571/956) (Table 1). Almost three-quarters (73%; 33 117/45 350) of patients were known to have received ART; of these, 97% (31 968) were
prescribed three or more drugs. The median distance to the closest HIV service was 2.5 km; this ranged from less than 1 km to 80 km (IQR 1.5–4.2 km) and varied across SHAs (Table 1). Patients living in London lived a median distance of 2.0 km (IQR 1.3–2.9 km) from their closest service and patients outside London a median distance of 3.7 km (IQR 2.0–6.3 km). The majority (81%; 37 539) of patients had at least one HIV service within 5 km of their place of residence, and 93% (43 473) had at least one service within 10 km. The average number of HIV services within 5 km of residence was 3.0 in London and 0.85 outside London. The median distance actually travelled to an HIV service in 2007 was 4.8 km (IQR 2.5–9.7 km) (Table 1). Almost three-quarters (73%; 34 206) of patients used a local HIV service, but just 8.7% (4033) used their closest.