Projected survival gains from revising state laws requiring written opt-in consent for HIV testing.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends HIV testing in all settings unless patients refuse (opt-out consent), many state laws require written opt-in consent.Objective
To quantify potential survival gains from passing state laws streamlining HIV testing consent.Design
We retrieved surveillance data to estimate the current annual HIV diagnosis rate in states with laws requiring written opt-in consent (19.3%). Published data informed the effect of removing that requirement on diagnosis rate (48.5% increase). These parameters then served as input for a model-driven projection of survival based on consent method. Other inputs included undiagnosed HIV prevalence (0.101%); and annual HIV incidence (0.023%).Patients
Hypothetical cohort of adults (>13 years) living in written opt-in states.Measurements
Life years gained (LYG).Results
In the base-case, of the 53,036,383 adult persons living in written opt-in states, 0.66% (350,040) will be infected with HIV. Due to earlier diagnosis, revised consent laws yield 1.5 LYG per HIV-infected person, corresponding to 537,399 LYG among this population. Sensitivity analyses demonstrate that diagnosis rate increases of 24.8-72.3% result in 304,765-724,195 LYG. Net survival gains vanish if the proportion of HIV-infected persons refusing all testing in response to revised laws exceeds 18.2%.Conclusions
The potential survival gains of increased testing are substantial, suggesting that state laws requiring opt-in HIV testing should be revised.
SUBMITTER: April MD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3101973 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:This article assesses the adequacy of informed consent to clinical genetic testing laws based on an examination of 15 states with institutions that had been involved in a National Institutes of Health-supported Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium project. We identified relevant statutory provisions through a legal search engine and included statutes that describe the informed consent requirements for clinical genetic testing and/or the protections for genetic material, information, or data. We found that statutory definitions were often limited in problematic ways, such as focusing only on variants known to be associated with disease or negative health effects or associated with asymptomatic disease. Some statutes required complex levels of detail if applied to genomic technologies and set confusing disclosure standards for current use and future access. Others had exceptions from informed consent requirements for future research use, limited requirements for the destruction of specimens as opposed to derived data, or linked key definitional components to the evolving concept of "identifiability." Further reform and research are needed to ensure that state law protections advance as rapidly as the science they aspire to enable.
| S-EPMC5994926 | biostudies-literature
Project description:State policies pertaining to health care provider reporting of perinatal substance use have implications for provider screening and referral behavior, patients' care seeking and access to prenatal substance use disorder treatment, and pregnancy and birth outcomes.This study sought to characterize specific provisions enacted in state statutes pertaining to mandates that health care providers report perinatal substance use, and to determine the proportion of births occurring in states with such laws.We conducted a systematic content analysis of statutes in all U.S. states that mentioned reporting by health care providers of substance use by pregnant women or infants exposed to substances in utero; inter-rater reliability was high. We calculated the number of states, and proportion of U.S. births occurring in states, with processes for mandatory reporting of perinatal substance use to authorities, and substance use disorder treatment provision for individuals who are reported.Twenty states (corresponding with 31% of births) had laws requiring health care providers to report perinatal substance use to child protective authorities, and four states (18% of births) had laws requiring reporting only when a health care provider believed the substance use was associated with child maltreatment. About one-half of states (13) with any reporting law had a provision promoting substance use disorder treatment in the perinatal period.Findings inform the ongoing debate about how health policies may be used to reduce the population burden of perinatal substance use.
| S-EPMC5435508 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the United States, animal contact exhibits, such as petting zoos and agricultural fairs, have been sources of zoonotic infections, including infections with Escherichia coli, Salmonella, and Cryptosporidium (1-4). The National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians recommends handwashing after contact with animals as an effective prevention measure to disease transmission at these exhibits (4). This report provides a list of states that have used law, specifically statutes and regulations, as public health interventions to increase hand sanitation at animal contact exhibits. The report is based on an assessment conducted by CDC's Public Health Law Program, in collaboration with the Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases in CDC's National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases. The assessment found that seven states have used statutes or regulations to require hand sanitation stations at these exhibits (5). Jurisdictions seeking to improve rates of hand sanitation at animal contact exhibits can use this report as a resource in developing their own legal interventions.
| S-EPMC5687266 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundScientific researchers who wish to reuse health data pertaining to individuals can obtain consent through an opt-in procedure or opt-out procedure. The choice of procedure may have consequences for the consent rate and representativeness of the study sample and the quality of the research, but these consequences are not well known.ObjectiveThis review aimed to provide insight into the consequences for the consent rate and consent bias of the study sample of opt-in procedures versus opt-out procedures for the reuse of routinely recorded health data for scientific research purposes.MethodsA systematic review was performed based on searches in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Library. Two reviewers independently included studies based on predefined eligibility criteria and assessed whether the statistical methods used in the reviewed literature were appropriate for describing the differences between consenters and nonconsenters. Statistical pooling was conducted, and a description of the results was provided.ResultsA total of 15 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Of the 15 studies, 13 (87%) implemented an opt-in procedure, 1 (7%) implemented an opt-out procedure, and 1 (7%) implemented both the procedures. The average weighted consent rate was 84% (60,800/72,418 among the studies that used an opt-in procedure and 96.8% (2384/2463) in the single study that used an opt-out procedure. In the single study that described both procedures, the consent rate was 21% in the opt-in group and 95.6% in the opt-out group. Opt-in procedures resulted in more consent bias compared with opt-out procedures. In studies with an opt-in procedure, consenting individuals were more likely to be males, had a higher level of education, higher income, and higher socioeconomic status.ConclusionsConsent rates are generally lower when using an opt-in procedure compared with using an opt-out procedure. Furthermore, in studies with an opt-in procedure, participants are less representative of the study population. However, both the study populations and the way in which opt-in or opt-out procedures were organized varied widely between the studies, which makes it difficult to draw general conclusions regarding the desired balance between patient control over data and learning from health data. The reuse of routinely recorded health data for scientific research purposes may be hampered by administrative burdens and the risk of bias.
| S-EPMC10015347 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo (1) assess whether hospitals in states requiring explicit patient consent ("opt-in") for health information exchange (HIE) are more likely to report regulatory barriers to HIE and (2) analyze whether these policies correlate with hospital volume of HIE.Study designCross-sectional analysis of US nonfederal acute care hospitals in 2016.MethodsWe combined legal scholarship surveying HIE-relevant state laws with the American Hospital Association Annual Information Technology Supplement for regulatory barriers and hospital characteristics. Data from CMS reports for hospitals attesting to Meaningful Use stage 2 (MU2; renamed "Promoting Interoperability" in 2018) in 2016 captured hospital HIE volume. We used multivariate logistic regression and linear regression to estimate the association of opt-in state consent policies with reported regulatory barriers and HIE volume, respectively.ResultsHospitals in states with opt-in consent policies were 7.8 percentage points more likely than hospitals in opt-out states to report regulatory barriers to HIE (P = .03). In subgroup analyses, this finding held among hospitals that did not attest to MU2 (7.7 percentage points; P = .02). Among hospitals attesting, we did not find a relationship between opt-in policies and regulatory barriers (8.0 percentage points; P = .13) or evidence of a relationship between opt-in policies and HIE volume (β = 0.56; P = .76).ConclusionsOur findings suggest that opt-in consent laws may carry greater administrative burdens compared with opt-out policies. However, less technologically advanced hospitals may bear more of this burden. Furthermore, opt-in policies may not affect HIE volume for hospitals that have already achieved a degree of technological sophistication. Policy makers should carefully consider the incidence of administrative burdens when crafting laws pertaining to HIE.
| S-EPMC7262872 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose of reviewImproving HIV testing uptake is essential to ending the HIV pandemic. HIV testing approaches can be opt-in, opt-out or risk-based. This systematic review examines and compares the uptake of HIV testing in opt-in, opt-out and risk-based testing approaches.Recent findingsThere remain missed opportunities for HIV testing in a variety of settings using different approaches: opt-in (a person actively accepts to be tested for HIV), opt-out (a person is informed that HIV testing is routine/standard of care, and they actively decline if they do not wish to be tested for HIV) or risk-based (using risk-based screening tools to focus testing on certain individuals or sub-populations at greater risk of HIV). It is not clear how the approach could impact HIV test uptake when adjusted for other factors (e.g. rapid testing, country-income level, test setting and population tested). We searched four databases for studies reporting on HIV test uptake. In total, 18,238 records were screened, and 150 studies were included in the review. Most studies described an opt-in approach (87 estimates), followed by opt-out (76) and risk-based (19). Opt-out testing was associated with 64.3% test uptake (I2 = 99.9%), opt-in testing with 59.8% (I2 = 99.9%) and risk-based testing with 54.4% (I2 = 99.9%). When adjusted for settings that offered rapid testing, country income level, setting and population tested, opt-out testing had a significantly higher uptake (+ 12% (95% confidence intervals: 3-21), p = 0.007) than opt-in testing. We also found that emergency department patients and hospital outpatients had significantly lower HIV test uptake than other populations.
| S-EPMC9508204 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInformed consent (IC) is an essential step in helping patients be aware of consequences of their treatment decisions. With surgery, it is vitally important for patients to understand the risks and benefits of the procedure and decide accordingly. We explored whether a written IC form was provided to patients; whether they read and signed it; whether they communicated orally with the physician; whether these communications influenced patient decisions.MethodsAdult postsurgical patients in nine general hospitals of Italy's Campania Region were interviewed via a structured questionnaire between the second and seventh day after the surgery at the end of the first surgical follow up visit. Physicians who were independent from the surgical team administered the questionnaire.ResultsThe written IC form was given to 84.5% of those interviewed. All recipients of the form signed it, either personally or through a delegate; however, 13.9% did not know/remember having done so; 51.8% said that they read it thoroughly. Of those who reported to have read it, 90.9% judged it to be clear. Of those receiving the written consent form, 52.0% had gotten it the day before the surgery at the earliest 41.1% received it some hours or immediately before the procedure. The written IC form was explained to 65.6% of the patients, and 93.9% of them received further oral information that deemed understandable. Most attention was given to the diagnosis and the type of surgical procedure, which was communicated respectively to 92.8 and 88.2% of the patients. Almost one in two patients believed that the information provided some emotional relief, while 23.2% experienced increased anxiety. Younger patients (age???60) and patients with higher levels of education were more likely to read the written IC form.ConclusionsThe written IC form is not sufficient in assuring patients and making them fully aware of choices they made for their health; pre-operative information that was delivered orally better served the patients' needs. To improve the quality of communication we suggest enhancing physicians' communication skills and for them to use structured conversation to ensure that individuals are completely informed before undergoing their procedures.
| S-EPMC6323683 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Enrollment in smoking cessation trials remain sub-optimal. The aim of this analysis was to determine the effectiveness of a modified Zelen's design in engaging hospitalized patients who smoke in a pragmatic OPT-IN versus OPT-OUT tobacco treatment trial. Methods: At bedside, clinical staff screened smokers for eligibility, randomized eligible into study arms, and delivered the appropriate treatment approach. Study staff called randomized patients at one-month post-discharge, debriefed patients on the study design, and collected consent to participate. We used frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and means and standard deviations for quantitative variables to describe the characteristics of those who consented and were enrolled versus those who did not enroll. We also compared the characteristics of participants who consented and those who were reached and explicitly refused consent at one-month follow-up. We used the Cohen's d measure of effect size to evaluate differences. Results: Of the 1,000 randomized, 741 (74.1%) consented to continue in the study at one-month follow-up. One hundred and twenty-seven (12.7%) refused consent and 132 (13.2%) were unreachable. Cohen's d effect size differences between those who consented/enrolled (n = 741) and those who were not enrolled (n = 259) were negligible (<0.2) for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and most forms of insurance. The effect size was small for Medicaid (0.36), and other public insurance (0.48). After excluding those unreached at 1 month (12.7%), there were medium Cohen's d effect size differences between those who consented to participate (n = 741) and those who explicitly refused (n = 127) with respect to age (0.55) and self-pay or no insurance (0.51). There were small to negligible effect size differences with respect to sex, race/ethnicity, and other forms of health insurance. Conclusions: The modified Zelen's design resulted in successful enrollment of most participants who were initially randomized into the trial, including those not motivated to quit.
| S-EPMC9195495 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesRapid-onset dystonia-parkinsonism (RDP) is caused by mutations in the ATP1A3 gene, which codes for the α-3 subunit of the Na+ /K+ ATPase. It has been characterized by rapid-onset bulbar dysfunction, limb dystonia, bradykinesia, and a rostrocaudal spatial gradient of expression, usually after a physiologic trigger. We reexamined whether these features were in fact characteristic.MethodsWe characterized phenotypic variation within a cohort of 50 ATP1A3 mutation-positive individuals (carriers) and 44 mutation-negative family members (noncarriers). Potential participants were gathered through referral for clinical suspicion of RDP or alternating hemiplegia of childhood. Inclusion criteria were having a ATP1A3 mutation or being a family member of such an individual.ResultsWe found RDP is underdiagnosed if only "characteristic" patients are tested. Rapid onset and bulbar predominance were not universally present in carriers. Among those with at least mild symptoms of dystonia, rostrocaudal severity gradient was rare (7%). Symptoms began focally but progressed to be generalized (51%) or multifocal (49%). Arm (41%) onset was most common. Arms and voice were typically most severely affected (48% and 44%, respectively). Triggers preceded onset in 77% of the participants. Rapid onset, dystonia, parkinsonism, bulbar symptoms, headaches, seizures, frontal impairment, and a history of mood disorder and a history of psychosis were more common in carriers. Approximately half of the proband mutations occurred de novo (56%).ConclusionsOur findings suggest that patients should not be excluded from ATP1A3 testing because of slow onset, limb onset, absent family history, or onset in middle adulthood. RDP should be strongly considered in the differential for any bulbar dystonia. © 2019 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
| S-EPMC6879786 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe sought to characterize persons who requested to opt out of an exception from informed consent (EFIC) cardiac arrest trial and their reasons for opting out.MethodsAt one site of a multi-site, out-of-hospital, cardiac arrest EFIC trial (September 2007 - June 2009), persons who did not want to participate in the study could request an opt-out "NO STUDY" bracelet to prevent trial enrollment. We surveyed all persons who requested a bracelet by phone interview, web or mail. Opt-out bracelets were advertised in all public communication about the study, including community consultation and public disclosure efforts. Survey questions included demographics, Likert scale items about attitudes toward the trial and research in general, plus open-ended questions. We used descriptive statistics for standardized questions and qualitative analysis to identify common themes from open-ended questions.ResultsSixty bracelets were requested by 50 individuals. Surveys were completed by 46 persons (92% response rate). Seventy percent of respondents agreed emergency research is important, but 87% objected to any research without consent. In the qualitative analysis, 5 overlapping themes emerged: questioning the ethics of EFIC research; concerns about how the study would impact end-of-life preferences; subjective emotions including sarcasm, anger, and allusions to past unethical research; negative reference to unrelated public health controversies; and objections to the study protocol based on misinformation.ConclusionsA primary reason for opting out from this EFIC trial was opposition to all research without informed consent, despite stated support for emergency research. Understanding the demographics and beliefs of persons opting out may aid researchers planning EFIC studies and help provide clarity in future EFIC-related community education efforts.
| S-EPMC3654061 | biostudies-literature