The burden of knowing: balancing benefits and barriers in HIV testing decisions. a qualitative study from Zambia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Client-initiated HIV counselling and testing has been scaled up in many African countries, in the form of voluntary counselling and testing (VCT). Test rates have remained low, with HIV-related stigma being an important barrier to HIV testing. This study explored HIV testing decisions in one rural and one urban district in Zambia with high HIV prevalence and available antiretroviral treatment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data were collected through 17 in-depth interviews and two focus group discussions with individuals and 10 in-depth interviews with counsellors. Interpretive description methodology was employed to analyse the data.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>'To know your status' was found to be a highly charged concept yielding strong barriers against HIV testing. VCT was perceived as a diagnostic device and a gateway to treatment for the severely ill. Known benefits of prevention and early treatment were outweighed by a perceived burden of knowing your HIV status related to stigma and fear. The manner in which the VCT services were organised added to this burden.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study draws on social stigma theory to enhance the understanding of the continuity of HIV related stigma in the presence of ART, and argues that the burden of knowing an HIV status and the related reluctance to get HIV tested can be understood both as a form of label-avoidance and as strong expressions of the still powerful embodied memories of suffering and death among non-curable AIDS patients over the last decades. Hope lies in the emerging signs of a reduction in HIV related stigma experienced by those who had been tested for HIV. Further research into innovative HIV testing service designs that do not add to the burden of knowing is needed.</p

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease