35 research outputs found

    Factors Associated with Refusal of Rapid HIV Testing in an Emergency Department

    Get PDF
    HIV screening studies in the emergency department (ED) have demonstrated rates of HIV test refusal ranging from 40–67%. This study aimed to determine the factors associated with refusal to undergo routine rapid HIV testing in an academic ED in Boston. HIV counselors offered routine testing to 1,959 patients; almost one-third of patients (29%) refused. Data from a self-administered survey were used to determine independent correlates of HIV testing refusal. In multivariate analysis, women and patients with annual household incomes of $50,000 or more were more likely to refuse testing, as were those who reported not engaging in HIV risk behaviors, those previously HIV tested and those who did not perceive a need for testing. Enrollment during morning hours was also associated with an increased risk of refusal. Increased educational efforts to convey the rationale and benefits of universal screening may improve testing uptake among these groups

    Resource Utilization and Cost-Effectiveness of Counselor- vs. Provider-Based Rapid Point-of-Care HIV Screening in the Emergency Department

    Get PDF
    Routine HIV screening in emergency department (ED) settings may require dedicated personnel. We evaluated the outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness of HIV screening when offered by either a member of the ED staff or by an HIV counselor.We employed a mathematical model to extend data obtained from a randomized clinical trial of provider- vs. counselor-based HIV screening in the ED. We compared the downstream survival, costs, and cost-effectiveness of three HIV screening modalities: 1) no screening program; 2) an ED provider-based program; and 3) an HIV counselor-based program. Trial arm-specific data were used for test offer and acceptance rates (provider offer 36%, acceptance 75%; counselor offer 80%, acceptance 71%). Undiagnosed HIV prevalence (0.4%) and linkage to care rates (80%) were assumed to be equal between the screening modalities. Personnel costs were derived from trial-based resource utilization data. We examined the generalizability of results by conducting sensitivity analyses on offer and acceptance rates, undetected HIV prevalence, and costs.Estimated HIV screening costs in the provider and counselor arms averaged 8.10and8.10 and 31.00 per result received. The Provider strategy (compared to no screening) had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 58,700/qualityadjustedlifeyear(QALY)andtheCounselorstrategy(comparedtotheProviderstrategy)hadanincrementalcosteffectivenessratioof58,700/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and the Counselor strategy (compared to the Provider strategy) had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 64,500/QALY. Results were sensitive to the relative offer and acceptance rates by strategy and the capacity of providers to target-screen, but were robust to changes in undiagnosed HIV prevalence and programmatic costs.The cost-effectiveness of provider-based HIV screening in an emergency department setting compares favorably to other US screening programs. Despite its additional cost, counselor-based screening delivers just as much return on investment as provider based-screening. Investment in dedicated HIV screening personnel is justified in situations where ED staff resources may be insufficient to provide comprehensive, sustainable screening services

    Meta-Regression: Year of Publication.

    No full text
    <p>This figure shows the association between the year of publication and intervention efficacy for A) knee injury and B) ACL injury. Publication year is along the X-axis, and each dot represents the summary IRR for that year. The size of the bubble corresponds to the average sample size for studies published in that year.</p
    corecore