Increased Uptake of HIV Testing With the Integration of Nurse-Initiated HIV Testing Into Routine Prenatal Care
*Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences University of California San Francisco San Francisco, CA daggerDepartment of Pediatrics Stanford University Stanford CA double daggerDepartment of Medicine University of California San Francisco San Francisco, CA. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes
(Impact Factor: 4.56).
01/2009; 49(5):571-3. DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e31818d5e11
Available from: PubMed Central
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In the US, an unacceptably high percentage of pregnant women do not undergo prenatal HIV testing. Previous studies have found increased uptake of prenatal HIV testing with abbreviated pre-test counseling, however little is known about patient decision making, testing satisfaction and knowledge in this setting.
A randomized-controlled, non-inferiority trial was conducted from October 2006 through February 2008 at San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH), the public teaching hospital of the City and County of San Francisco. A total of 278 English- and Spanish-speaking pregnant women were randomized to receive either abbreviated or standard nurse-performed HIV test counseling at the initial prenatal visit. Patient decision making experience was compared between abbreviated versus standard HIV counseling strategies among a sample of low-income, urban, ethnically diverse prenatal patients. The primary outcome was the decisional conflict score (DCS) using O'Connor low-literacy scale and secondary outcomes included satisfaction with test decision, basic HIV knowledge and HIV testing uptake. We conducted an intention-to-treat analysis of 278 women--134 (48.2%) in the abbreviated arm (AA) and 144 (51.8%) in the standard arm (SA). There was no significant difference in the proportion of women with low decisional conflict (71.6% in AA vs. 76.4% in SA, p = .37), and the observed mean difference between the groups of 3.88 (95% CI: -0.65, 8.41) did not exceed the non-inferiority margin. HIV testing uptake was very high (97. 8%) and did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (99.3% in AA vs. 96.5% in SA, p = .12). Likewise, there was no difference in satisfaction with testing decision (97.8% in AA vs. 99.3% in SA, p = .36). However, women in AA had significantly lower mean HIV knowledge scores (78.4%) compared to women in SA (83.7%, p<0.01).
This study suggests that streamlining the pre-test counseling process, while associated with slightly lower knowledge, does not compromise patient decision making or satisfaction regarding HIV testing.
PLoS ONE 04/2009; 4(4):e5166. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0005166 · 3.23 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: HIV testing policies and practices vary widely across Europe. It is clear that there are individuals who might present late for HIV diagnosis and care within all risk groups, and potentially in any healthcare setting. This article explores the need to ensure earlier identification and treatment of late-presenting patients by reviewing strategies that might be considered. Such strategies could include routine provider-initiated HIV testing of at-risk groups in settings such as sexually transmitted infection clinics, drug dependency programmes or antenatal care. Healthcare providers might also consider routine HIV testing in all healthcare facilities, in settings including emergency and primary care, where local HIV prevalence is above a threshold that should be further evaluated. They should also take advantage of rapid testing technologies and be aware of barriers to HIV testing among specific groups to provide opportunities for testing that are relevant to local communities.
Antiviral therapy 01/2010; 15 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):17-24. DOI:10.3851/IMP1526 · 3.02 Impact Factor
Available from: Kenneth Mayer
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We assessed the extent to which Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations have influenced routine HIV testing among Massachusetts community health center (CHC) personnel, and identified specific barriers and facilitators to routine testing.
Thirty-one CHCs were enrolled in the study. We compared those that did and did not receive funding support from the federal Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program. An anonymous survey was administered to a maximum five personnel from each CHC, including a senior administrator, the medical director, and three medical providers. Overall, 137 participants completed the survey.
Among all CHCs, 53% of administrators reported having implemented routine HIV testing at their CHCs; however, only 33% of medical directors/providers reported having implemented routine HIV testing in their practices (p<0.05). Among administrators, 60% of those from Ryan White-supported CHCs indicated that both they and their CHCs were aware of CDC's recommendations, compared with 27% of administrators from non-Ryan White-supported CHCs. The five most frequently reported barriers to the implementation of routine HIV testing were (1) constraints on providers' time (68%), (2) time required to administer counseling (65%), (3) time required to administer informed consent (52%), (4) lack of funding (35%), and (5) need for additional training (34%). In a multivariable logistic regression model, the provision of on-site HIV testing by nonmedical staff resulted in increased odds of conducting routine HIV testing (odds ratio [OR] = 9.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.77, 54.70). However, the amount of time needed to administer informed consent was associated with decreased odds of providing routine testing (OR=0.21, 95% CI 0.05, 0.92).
Routine HIV testing is not currently being implemented uniformly among Massachusetts CHCs. Future efforts to increase implementation should address personnel concerns regarding time and staff availability.
Public Health Reports 09/2011; 126(5):643-52. DOI:10.2307/41639415 · 1.55 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.