Eminder methods [17]. Finally, our sample size was powered to detect a 20 difference in adherence between both arms. The difference we found was much less. Our findings should be interpreted in light of the published trials in Kenya [8,9], which show some improved adherence rates after twelve months, also reported in a Cochrane review synthesizing data from both trials [10]. The interventions evaluated were somewhat different. While our trial used motivational messages, with the intention to produce a change in adherence behavior, and no compulsory feedback, the Weltel trial used a simple SMS inquiry on the participants’ health and was therefore interactive [8]. The second trial used short and long one-way messages: the longer message with encouraging content, but no option for feedback [9]. Even though we used optional feedback, we did not detect any improvements in adherence. Only 48 participants in the intervention arm used the feedback option. We also usedText Messages for Adherence in HIVTable 1. Demographics and baseline.Variable Age (years): mean (SD) Gender: n ( ) Female Level of education: n ( ) None Primary Secondary Tertiary Family aware of HIV status: n ( ) Presence of an opportunistic infection: n( ) BMI : mean (SD) CDC* classification – AIDS defining illness1:n( ) Regimen: n ( ) First line Second line Duration on ARV (months): median (Q1, Q3) CD4 (cells per mm3): median (Q1, Q3) Adherence (Visual Analogue Scale): mean (SD)SMS group (n = 101) 41.3 (10.1)Control group (n = 99) 39.0 (10.0)69 (68.3)78 (78.8)1 (1.0) 42 (41.6) 46 (45.5) 12 (11.9) 88 (87.1) 36 (35.6) 25.3 (4.1)e 76 (75.2)a3 (3.0) 32 (32.3) 51 (51.5) 13 (13.1) 92 (92.9) 26 (26.3) 25.2 (4.0)b 70(70.7)d91 (90.1) 7 (6.9) 31.0 (15.0, 50.5) 347.0 (211.0, 527.5) 88.8 (13.42)e88 (88.9) 11 (11.1) 22.0 (7.0,46.0)m 327.0 (194.0,475.0) 92.4 (11.84)d= 1 BIBS39 biological activity missing; b = 8 missing; e = 6 missing; a = 3 missing; d = 4 missing; m = 2 missing; SD: standard deviation; CDC: Centres for Disease Control, 1 CDC classifications: A3, B3, C1, C1, C3 [1]; CD4: CD4-positive-T-lymphocyte; Q1: first quartile; Q3: third quartile. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0046909.tTable 2. Outcomes at 6 months.Effect JI 101 chemical information Estimatem RR (95 CI);p 1.06 (0.89,1.29; 0.542 1.01 (0.87,1.16;) .0.999 MD (95 CI);p 0.1 (20.23,0.43); 0.617 RR (95 CI);p 1.14 (1.01,1.29);0.027 1.15 (0.64,2.07); 0.632 2.94 (0.31?7.79); 0.322 0.95 (0.83,1.08); 0.399 MD (95 CI);p 1.60(21.72,4.92); 0.344 0.81(20.32,1.94); 0.159 0.04(20.12,0.20); 0.Outcome PrimaryType Binary VAS.95 Self report (no missed doses) Continuous Pharmacy Refill DataSMS group (n = 101) n ( ) 72 (71.3) 80 (79.2) Mean (SD) 3.8 (1.48) n ( ) 91 (90.1) 20 (19.8) 3 (2.9) 80 (79.2) Mean (SD) 71.8 (11.97) 26.54 (4.254) 3.79 (0.585)Control group (n = 99) n ( ) 66 (66.7) 78 (79.0) Mean (SD) 3.7 (1.34) n ( ) 78 (78.8) 17 (17.2) 1(1.0) 83 (83.8) Mean (SD) 70.2 (11.87) 25.73(3.823) 3.75 15755315 (0.583)Secondary*?Binary VAS.90 Presence of a new OI Mortality Retention Continuous Weight (kg) BMI Quality of life (SF-12 scale score)(SMS: short message service; RR: risk ratio; CI: confidence interval; SD: standard deviation; MD: mean difference; VAS: visual analogue scale; BMI: body mass index; OI: opportunistic infection; CD4: CD4-positive-T-lymphocyte; SF: short form). *Bonferroni adjustment for secondary outcomes: 0.05/8 = 0.006. ?Insufficient data for CD4 count (n = 34 for intervention and 26 for control; MD-24.4; 95 CI: 2101.3, 52.6; p = 0.599) and viral load (n = 0). m P-values obtained using.Eminder methods [17]. Finally, our sample size was powered to detect a 20 difference in adherence between both arms. The difference we found was much less. Our findings should be interpreted in light of the published trials in Kenya [8,9], which show some improved adherence rates after twelve months, also reported in a Cochrane review synthesizing data from both trials [10]. The interventions evaluated were somewhat different. While our trial used motivational messages, with the intention to produce a change in adherence behavior, and no compulsory feedback, the Weltel trial used a simple SMS inquiry on the participants’ health and was therefore interactive [8]. The second trial used short and long one-way messages: the longer message with encouraging content, but no option for feedback [9]. Even though we used optional feedback, we did not detect any improvements in adherence. Only 48 participants in the intervention arm used the feedback option. We also usedText Messages for Adherence in HIVTable 1. Demographics and baseline.Variable Age (years): mean (SD) Gender: n ( ) Female Level of education: n ( ) None Primary Secondary Tertiary Family aware of HIV status: n ( ) Presence of an opportunistic infection: n( ) BMI : mean (SD) CDC* classification – AIDS defining illness1:n( ) Regimen: n ( ) First line Second line Duration on ARV (months): median (Q1, Q3) CD4 (cells per mm3): median (Q1, Q3) Adherence (Visual Analogue Scale): mean (SD)SMS group (n = 101) 41.3 (10.1)Control group (n = 99) 39.0 (10.0)69 (68.3)78 (78.8)1 (1.0) 42 (41.6) 46 (45.5) 12 (11.9) 88 (87.1) 36 (35.6) 25.3 (4.1)e 76 (75.2)a3 (3.0) 32 (32.3) 51 (51.5) 13 (13.1) 92 (92.9) 26 (26.3) 25.2 (4.0)b 70(70.7)d91 (90.1) 7 (6.9) 31.0 (15.0, 50.5) 347.0 (211.0, 527.5) 88.8 (13.42)e88 (88.9) 11 (11.1) 22.0 (7.0,46.0)m 327.0 (194.0,475.0) 92.4 (11.84)d= 1 missing; b = 8 missing; e = 6 missing; a = 3 missing; d = 4 missing; m = 2 missing; SD: standard deviation; CDC: Centres for Disease Control, 1 CDC classifications: A3, B3, C1, C1, C3 [1]; CD4: CD4-positive-T-lymphocyte; Q1: first quartile; Q3: third quartile. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0046909.tTable 2. Outcomes at 6 months.Effect Estimatem RR (95 CI);p 1.06 (0.89,1.29; 0.542 1.01 (0.87,1.16;) .0.999 MD (95 CI);p 0.1 (20.23,0.43); 0.617 RR (95 CI);p 1.14 (1.01,1.29);0.027 1.15 (0.64,2.07); 0.632 2.94 (0.31?7.79); 0.322 0.95 (0.83,1.08); 0.399 MD (95 CI);p 1.60(21.72,4.92); 0.344 0.81(20.32,1.94); 0.159 0.04(20.12,0.20); 0.Outcome PrimaryType Binary VAS.95 Self report (no missed doses) Continuous Pharmacy Refill DataSMS group (n = 101) n ( ) 72 (71.3) 80 (79.2) Mean (SD) 3.8 (1.48) n ( ) 91 (90.1) 20 (19.8) 3 (2.9) 80 (79.2) Mean (SD) 71.8 (11.97) 26.54 (4.254) 3.79 (0.585)Control group (n = 99) n ( ) 66 (66.7) 78 (79.0) Mean (SD) 3.7 (1.34) n ( ) 78 (78.8) 17 (17.2) 1(1.0) 83 (83.8) Mean (SD) 70.2 (11.87) 25.73(3.823) 3.75 15755315 (0.583)Secondary*?Binary VAS.90 Presence of a new OI Mortality Retention Continuous Weight (kg) BMI Quality of life (SF-12 scale score)(SMS: short message service; RR: risk ratio; CI: confidence interval; SD: standard deviation; MD: mean difference; VAS: visual analogue scale; BMI: body mass index; OI: opportunistic infection; CD4: CD4-positive-T-lymphocyte; SF: short form). *Bonferroni adjustment for secondary outcomes: 0.05/8 = 0.006. ?Insufficient data for CD4 count (n = 34 for intervention and 26 for control; MD-24.4; 95 CI: 2101.3, 52.6; p = 0.599) and viral load (n = 0). m P-values obtained using.