Article

Revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults, adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care settings.

Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (proposed), Atlanta, GA 30333, USA.
MMWR. Recommendations and reports: Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports / Centers for Disease Control 10/2006; 55(RR-14):1-17; quiz CE1-4.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT These recommendations for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing are intended for all health-care providers in the public and private sectors, including those working in hospital emergency departments, urgent care clinics, inpatient services, substance abuse treatment clinics, public health clinics, community clinics, correctional health-care facilities, and primary care settings. The recommendations address HIV testing in health-care settings only. They do not modify existing guidelines concerning HIV counseling, testing, and referral for persons at high risk for HIV who seek or receive HIV testing in nonclinical settings (e.g., community-based organizations, outreach settings, or mobile vans). The objectives of these recommendations are to increase HIV screening of patients, including pregnant women, in health-care settings; foster earlier detection of HIV infection; identify and counsel persons with unrecognized HIV infection and link them to clinical and prevention services; and further reduce perinatal transmission of HIV in the United States. These revised recommendations update previous recommendations for HIV testing in health-care settings and for screening of pregnant women (CDC. Recommendations for HIV testing services for inpatients and outpatients in acute-care hospital settings. MMWR 1993;42[No. RR-2]:1-10; CDC. Revised guidelines for HIV counseling, testing, and referral. MMWR 2001;50[No. RR-19]:1-62; and CDC. Revised recommendations for HIV screening of pregnant women. MMWR 2001;50[No. RR-19]:63-85). Major revisions from previously published guidelines are as follows: For patients in all health-care settings HIV screening is recommended for patients in all health-care settings after the patient is notified that testing will be performed unless the patient declines (opt-out screening). Persons at high risk for HIV infection should be screened for HIV at least annually. Separate written consent for HIV testing should not be required; general consent for medical care should be considered sufficient to encompass consent for HIV testing. Prevention counseling should not be required with HIV diagnostic testing or as part of HIV screening programs in health-care settings. For pregnant women HIV screening should be included in the routine panel of prenatal screening tests for all pregnant women. HIV screening is recommended after the patient is notified that testing will be performed unless the patient declines (opt-out screening). Separate written consent for HIV testing should not be required; general consent for medical care should be considered sufficient to encompass consent for HIV testing. Repeat screening in the third trimester is recommended in certain jurisdictions with elevated rates of HIV infection among pregnant women.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
185 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) focus on funding HIV prevention interventions likely to have high impact on the HIV epidemic. In its most recent funding announcement to state and local health department grantees, CDC required that health departments allocate the majority of funds to four HIV prevention interventions: HIV testing, prevention with HIV-positives and their partners, condom distribution and policy initiatives. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature to determine the extent of the cost-effectiveness evidence for each of those interventions. We searched for US-based studies published through October 2012. The studies that qualified for inclusion contained original analyses that reported costs per quality-adjusted life-year saved, life-year saved, HIV infection averted, or new HIV diagnosis. For each study, paired reviewers performed a detailed review and data extraction. We reported the number of studies related to each intervention and summarized key cost-effectiveness findings according to intervention type. Costs were converted to 2011 US dollars. Of the 50 articles that met the inclusion criteria, 33 related to HIV testing, 15 assessed prevention with HIV-positives and partners, three reported on condom distribution, and one reported on policy initiatives. Methodologies and cost-effectiveness metrics varied across studies and interventions, making them difficult to compare. Our review provides an updated summary of the published evidence of cost effectiveness of four key HIV prevention interventions recommended by CDC. With the exception of testing-related interventions, including partner services, where economic evaluations suggest that testing often can be cost effective, more cost-effectiveness research is needed to help guide the most efficient use of HIV prevention funds.
    Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 12/2014;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Young African Americans are disproportionately affected by sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The purpose was to identify reasons that African American college students at a historically Black college/university (HBCU) identified as barriers to HIV testing, and how these barriers can be removed. Fifty-seven heterosexual-identified undergraduate students (ages 18-25) attending an HBCU in the southeastern US participated in a mixed method study. Latent content analytic techniques were used to code the transcripts for themes and categories, and representative quotations were used in the findings. Quantitative data indicates high levels of perceived knowledge about HIV transmission, low perception of risk and concern of contracting HIV, yet continued sexual risk behavior. Qualitative data indicates three main themes used to avoid testing and three themes to encourage testing. Students were forthcoming in discussing the themes around avoidance of HIV testing (being scared to know, preferring not to know, and lack of discussion about HIV) and encouraging testing (group testing, increasing basic knowledge, and showing the reality of HIV). It is important for college healthcare professionals, researchers, and officials to identify appropriate ways to encourage HIV testing, and promote testing as part of overall health.
    Journal of health disparities research and practice. 01/2014; 7(1):2.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Early diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) allows for appropriately timed interventions with improved outcomes, but HIV screening among asymptomatic persons and the general population in Singapore remains low. In 2008, Singapore's Ministry of Health implemented HIV voluntary opt-out screening (VOS) for hospitalised adults. We evaluated the outcome of VOS and surveyed reasons for its low uptake in our institution. We assessed the outcomes of the VOS programme from January 2010 to December 2013 at National University Hospital, a 1081-bed tertiary hospital in Singapore. We also examined reasons for opting-in and opting-out using an interviewer-administered structured questionnaire in a representative sample in January 2013. 107,523 patients fulfilled VOS criteria and were offered HIV screening, of which 5215 (4.9%) agreed to testing. 4850 (93.1%) of those who opted-in had an HIV test done. Three (0.06%) tested positive for HIV. 238 patients (14.2%) were surveyed regarding reasons for opting-in or out of VOS. 21 (8.8%) had opted-in. Patients who opted-in were likely to be younger, more educated and reported having more regular sexual partners. Type of housing, number of casual sexual partners, sexual orientation, intravenous drug use, condom use and previous sexually transmitted infection were not associated with deciding to opt-in/out. Patients' most common reasons for opting-out were: belief that they were at low risk (50.2%), belief that they were too old (26.8%), cost (6.9%) and aversion to venepuncture (6.5%). The most common reason for opting-in was desire to know their HIV status (47.6%). The success of an HIV-VOS program is largely determined by test uptake. Our study showed that the majority of eligible VOS patients opted-out of HIV screening. Given the considerable cost and low yield of this programme, more needs to be done to better equip patients in self-risk assessment and opting in to testing.
    PLoS ONE 01/2015; 10(1):e0116987. · 3.53 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
28 Downloads
Available from
Jun 1, 2014