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

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

Contributions to early HIV diagnosis among patients linked to care vary by testing venue

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>Early HIV diagnosis reduces transmission and improves health outcomes; screening in non-traditional settings is increasingly advocated. We compared test venues by the number of new diagnoses successfully linked to the regional HIV treatment center and disease stage at diagnosis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a retrospective cohort study using structured chart review of newly diagnosed HIV patients successfully referred to the region's only HIV treatment center from 1998 to 2003. Demographics, testing indication, risk profile, and initial CD4 count were recorded.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were 277 newly diagnosed patients meeting study criteria. Mean age was 33 years, 77% were male, and 46% were African-American. Median CD4 at diagnosis was 324. Diagnoses were earlier via partner testing at the HIV treatment center (N = 8, median CD4 648, p = 0.008) and with universal screening by the blood bank, military, and insurance companies (N = 13, median CD4 483, p = 0.05) than at other venues. Targeted testing by health care and public health entities based on patient request, risk profile, or patient condition lead to later diagnosis.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Test venues varied by the number of new diagnoses made and the stage of illness at diagnosis. To improve the rate of early diagnosis, scarce resources should be allocated to maximize the number of new diagnoses at screening venues where diagnoses are more likely to be early or alter testing strategies at test venues where diagnoses are traditionally made late. Efforts to improve early diagnosis should be coordinated longitudinally on a regional basis according to this conceptual paradigm.</p

Routine Opt-Out HIV Testing Strategies in a Female Jail Setting: A Prospective Controlled Trial

Background: Ten million Americans enter jails annually. The objective was to evaluate new CDC guidelines for routine optout HIV testing and examine the optimal time to implement routine opt-out HIV testing among newly incarcerated jail detainees. Methods: This prospective, controlled trial of routine opt-out HIV testing was conducted among 323 newly incarcerated female inmates in Connecticut’s only women’s jail. 323 sequential entrants to the women’s jail over a five week period in August and September 2007 were assigned to be offered routine opt-out HIV testing at one of three points after incarceration: immediate (same day, n = 108), early (next day, n = 108), or delayed (7 days, n = 107). The primary outcome was the proportion of women in each group consenting to testing. Results: Routine opt-out HIV testing was significantly highest (73%) among the early testing group compared to 55 % for immediate and 50 % for 7 days post-entry groups. Other factors significantly (p = 0.01) associated with being HIV tested were younger age and low likelihood of early release from jail based on bond value or type of charge for which women were arrested. Conclusions: In this correctional facility, routine opt-out HIV testing in a jail setting was feasible, with highest rates of testing if performed the day after incarceration. Lower testing rates were seen with immediate testing, where there is a high prevalence of inability or unwillingness to test, and with delayed testing, where attrition from jail increases with each passing day

Rapid HIV testing program implementation: lessons from the emergency department

Background: The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines and the World Health Organization (WHO) both recommend HIV testing in health-care settings. However, neither organization provides prescriptive details regarding how these recommendations should be adapted into clinical practice in an emergency department. Methods: We have implemented an HIV-testing program in the ED of a major academic medical center within the scope of the Universal Screening for HIV Infection in the Emergency Room (USHER) Trial—a randomized clinical trial evaluating the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of HIV screening in this setting. Results and conclusion: Drawing on our collective experiences in establishing programs domestically and internationally, we offer a practical framework of lessons learned so that others poised to embark on such HIV testing programs may benefit from our experiences

HIV Testing of Tuberculosis Patients by Public and Private Providers in New York City

Thirty percent of tuberculosis (TB) patients in New York City in 2007 were not tested for HIV, which may be attributable to differential testing behaviors between private and public TB providers. Adult TB cases in New York City from 2001–2007 (n=5172) were evaluated for an association between TB provider type (private or public) and HIV testing. Outcomes examined were offers of HIV tests and patient refusal of HIV testing, using multivariate logistic and binomial regression, respectively. HIV test offers were less frequent among patients who visited only private providers than patients who visited only public providers (males: adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.15–0.74; females: aOR=0.26, 95% CI: 0.12–0.57). Changing from private to public providers was associated with an increase in HIV tests offered among male patients (aOR=1.96, 95% CI: 1.04–3.70). Among patients who did not use substances, those who visited only private providers were more likely to refuse HIV testing than those who visited only public providers (males: adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR]=1.26, 95% CI: 0.99–1.60; females: aPR=1.78, 95% CI: 1.43–2.22). Patients of private providers were less likely to have an HIV test performed during their TB treatment. Education of TB providers should emphasize HIV testing of all TB patients, especially among patients who are traditionally considered low-risk