Comparison of patient comprehension of rapid HIV pre-test fundamentals by information delivery format in an emergency department setting

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Two trials were conducted to compare emergency department patient comprehension of rapid HIV pre-test information using different methods to deliver this information.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients were enrolled for these two trials at a US emergency department between February 2005 and January 2006. In Trial One, patients were randomized to a no pre-test information or an in-person discussion arm. In Trial Two, a separate group of patients were randomized to an in-person discussion arm or a Tablet PC-based video arm. The video, "Do you know about rapid HIV testing?", and the in-person discussion contained identical Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-suggested pre-test information components as well as information on rapid HIV testing with OraQuick^®. Participants were compared by information arm on their comprehension of the pre-test information by their score on a 26-item questionnaire using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In Trial One, 38 patients completed the no-information arm and 31 completed the in-person discussion arm. Of these 69 patients, 63.8% had twelve years or fewer of formal education and 66.7% had previously been tested for HIV. The mean score on the questionnaire for the in-person discussion arm was higher than for the no information arm (18.7 vs. 13.3, p ≤ 0.0001). In Trial Two, 59 patients completed the in-person discussion and 55 completed the video arms. Of these 114 patients, 50.9% had twelve years or fewer of formal education and 68.4% had previously been tested for HIV. The mean score on the questionnaire for the video arm was similar to the in-person discussion arm (20.0 vs. 19.2; p ≤ 0.33).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The video "Do you know about rapid HIV testing?" appears to be an acceptable substitute for an in-person pre-test discussion on rapid HIV testing with OraQuick^®. In terms of adequately informing ED patients about rapid HIV testing, either form of pre-test information is preferable than for patients to receive no pre-test information.</p

Perinatal HIV transmission and the cost-effectiveness of screening at 14 weeks gestation, at the onset of labour and the rapid testing of infants

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Preventing HIV transmission is a worldwide public health issue. Vertical transmission of HIV from a mother can be prevented with diagnosis and treatment, but screening incurs cost. The U.S. Virgin Islands follows the mainland policy on antenatal screening for HIV even though HIV prevalence is higher and rates of antenatal care are lower. This leads to many cases of vertically transmitted HIV. A better policy is required for the U.S. Virgin Islands.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The objective of this research was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of relevant HIV screening strategies for the antenatal population in the U.S. Virgin Islands. An economic model was used to evaluate the incremental costs and incremental health benefits of nine different combinations of perinatal HIV screening strategies as compared to existing practice from a societal perspective. Three opportunities for screening were considered in isolation and in combination: by 14 weeks gestation, at the onset of labor, or of the infant after birth. The main outcome measure was the cost per life year gained (LYG).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Results indicate that all strategies would produce benefits and save costs. Universal screening by 14 weeks gestation and screening the infant after birth is the recommended strategy, with cost savings of $1,122,787 and health benefits of 310 LYG. Limitations include the limited research on the variations in screening acceptance of screening based on specimen sample, race and economic status. The benefits of screening after 14 weeks gestation but before the onset of labor were also not addressed.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study highlights the benefits of offering screening at different opportunities and repeat screening and raises the question of generalizing these results to other countries with similar characteristics.</p