Abigail, my back of the envelope calculations say to me that of the 797 originally lost to follow-up, some 200 were in care of some sort one year after being re-found (again, I don't know if it's about half of the 409 or about half of the 59%). To that, I say great, 200 back in! But that is not 75% of the 797, or of the 684, of the 409, OK it's closer, but then the headline is very misleading!
So, of the 568 who we might say needed to be found (797 - 229), 200 or so were in continuous care again. My questions are the big questions. WHY do people fall out of care (ask them!) and why do they not stay in care (ask them!). It's the only way we can make policies and interventions that don't allow them to fall through the cracks in the future.
Sure, there are always those who very rationally decide "now is not the time", but that can be captured. What does not help us is simply to turn ourselves into modern day "bounty hunters" w/o looking into the quite possibly difficult reasons behind all the new work we are doing.
I mean, treaters should be providers, not bounty hunters, right? : - ) And the only way to achieve that is to find out why they "escaped" in the first place.
(If all this stuff is in the paper, sorry, I don't have full access.)