Dataset Information

Provider and practice characteristics associated with use of rapid HIV Testing by general internists.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Rapid HIV testing could increase routine HIV testing. Most previous studies of rapid testing were conducted in acute care settings, and few described the primary care providers' perspective.

Objective

To identify characteristics of general internal medicine physicians with access to rapid HIV testing, and to determine whether such access is associated with differences in HIV-testing practices or perceived HIV-testing barriers.

Design

Web-based cross-sectional survey conducted in 2009.

Participants

A total of 406 physician members of the Society of General Internal Medicine who supervise residents or provide care in outpatient settings.

Main measures

Surveys assessed provider and practice characteristics, HIV-testing types, HIV-testing behavior, and potential barriers to HIV testing.

Results

Among respondents, 15% had access to rapid HIV testing. In multivariable analysis, physicians were more likely to report access to rapid testing if they were non-white (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22, 0.91), had more years since completing training (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02, 1.10), practiced in the northeastern US (OR 2.35; 95% CI 1.28, 4.32), or their practice included a higher percentage of uninsured patients (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.01, 1.04). Internists with access to rapid testing reported fewer barriers to HIV testing. More respondents with rapid than standard testing reported at least 25% of their patients received HIV testing (51% versus 35%, p = 0.02). However, access to rapid HIV testing was not significantly associated with the estimated proportion of patients receiving HIV testing within the previous 30 days (7.24% vs. 4.58%, p = 0.06).

Conclusion

Relatively few internists have access to rapid HIV testing in outpatient settings, with greater availability of rapid testing in community-based clinics and in the northeastern US. Future research may determine whether access to rapid testing in primary care settings will impact routinizing HIV testing.

SUBMITTER: Bass MG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3208478 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Provider and practice characteristics associated with use of rapid HIV Testing by general internists.

Bass Michael G MG Korthuis P Todd PT Cofrancesco Joseph J Berkenblit Gail V GV Sullivan Lynn E LE Asch Steve M SM Bashook Philip G PG Edison Marcia M Sosman James M JM Cook Robert L RL

Journal of general internal medicine 20110628 11

<h4>Background</h4>Rapid HIV testing could increase routine HIV testing. Most previous studies of rapid testing were conducted in acute care settings, and few described the primary care providers' perspective.<h4>Objective</h4>To identify characteristics of general internal medicine physicians with access to rapid HIV testing, and to determine whether such access is associated with differences in HIV-testing practices or perceived HIV-testing barriers.<h4>Design</h4>Web-based cross-sectional sur ...[more]

PMID: 21710314

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Since 2011 China's central government has committed to establishing a new 'general practitioner' (GP)-centred primary care system. To this end there have been great efforts to train an additional 300?000 GPs by 2020. This paper examines the perspective of practitioners in Henan, China, regarding general practice. DESIGN:A mixed-methods approach using focus group discussions (FGD), and structured questionnaires. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS:Seven FGDs and responses to 1887 questionnaires included medical students, primary care doctors and GP residents in Henan. RESULTS:The three surveyed medical groups have some awareness of the attributes of general practice (eg, comprehensiveness, first contact and coordination), but often misinterpret what being a GP entails. Five themes were identified through the FGDs and tested quantitatively for their prevalence with structured questionnaires. First, the GPs' role as a comprehensive care provider was (mis)interpreted as an 'all-round doctor'. Second, the GP's responsibility as the first point of care was understood in two conflicting ways: private personal doctors of the rich and the powerful or village doctors for common people. Third, referral was understood as simply guiding patients to appropriate departments within the hospital while the gatekeeping role was interpreted to involve GPs being peoples' health protectors rather than being also gatekeepers of specialty services. Traditional Chinese medicine now further complicates the understanding of GPs. And lastly, the GPs' main responsibility was considered to be public health work. CONCLUSION:The misunderstandings of the roles and responsibilities of GPs render problematic the policy foundation of China's GP-centred primary care system. Pursuing the quantity of GPs on its own is meaningless, since the number needed depends on the delineated role of GPs. Top priority is to establish clarity about the GP role, which requires reforming the health delivery system to address issues with fragmented care, strategically taking into account the development of GPs with work delegation and substitution and providing more clarity on the distinction between general practice and public health.

Project description:ImportanceBiosimilars, or highly similar versions of complex biologic drugs, have the potential to slow drug spending growth; however, biosimilar uptake in the United States has been slow. Little is known about barriers to biosimilar uptake following drug launch.ObjectiveTo examine the patient, physician, and practice characteristics associated with biosimilar use in the Medicare population.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used regression analysis to estimate the association between biosimilar use and various characteristics. Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who received a filgrastim product or an infliximab product between the launch of a class's first biosimilar (quarter 3 2015 for filgrastim-sndz and quarter 4 2016 for infliximab-dyyb) and December 2018. Data analysis was conducted from March to November 2020.ExposuresPatient demographic characteristics and product clinical indications; physician demographic characteristics, specialty, and volume of filgrastim or infliximab biologic administration; hospital size, ownership, 340B status, academic medical center status, and system affiliation; physician office size and multispecialty status.Main outcomes and measuresAdministration of a filgrastim or infliximab biosimilar.ResultsThe final filgrastim sample included 25 870 patients (11 857 [45.8%] men; 14 224 [55.0%] aged 65-74 years; 22 617 [87.4%] White individuals) who had 259 178 administrations (79 017 [30.5%] biosimilar administrations), and the final infliximab sample included 14 786 patients (4765 [32.2%] men; 8773 [59.3%] aged 65-74 years; 13 467 [91.1%] White individuals) who had 174 973 administrations (9012 [5.2%] biosimilar administrations). In adjusted analyses, no patient demographic characteristics and 2 of 9 clinical indications (22.2%) were associated with biosimilar use (filgrastim, neutropenia: adjusted difference, -2.0 [95% CI, -3.9 to -0.2] percentage points; P = .03; infliximab, Crohn disease: adjusted difference, -1.8 [95% CI, -2.9 to -0.8] percentage points; P = .001). Several physician characteristics were associated with biosimilar administrations, including high filgrastim or infliximab prescribing volume (high vs low volume, filgrastim: adjusted difference, 3.6 [95% CI, 1.5 to 5.8] percentage points; P = .001; infliximab: adjusted difference, 1.2 [95% CI, 0.3 to 2.2] percentage points; P = .007) and specialty (eg, hematologist-oncologists vs primary care, filgrastim: adjusted difference, -3.0 [95% CI, -5.4 to -0.5] percentage points; P = .02). Numerous practice characteristics were associated with biosimilar use, including practice setting (outpatient hospital department vs office practice, filgrastim: adjusted difference, -16.1 [95% CI, -18.1 to -14.1] percentage points; P < .001; infliximab: adjusted difference, 3.0 [95% CI, 2.2 to 3.7] percentage points; P < .001) and hospital outpatient department ownership status (for-profit vs not-for-profit, filgrastim: adjusted difference, -17.4 [95% CI, -21.6 to -13.3] percentage points; P < .001; infliximab: adjusted difference, 10.8 [95% CI, 6.7 to 14.9] percentage points; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, practice setting and hospital ownership status had the largest associations with biosimilar usage, suggesting practices play a role in steering physicians toward certain medications. However, the types of practices with high biosimilar use differed by drug class. Further research is needed to understand the reasons for these differences across drug classes.

Dataset Information

Provider and practice characteristics associated with use of rapid HIV Testing by general internists.

Background

Objective

Design

Participants

Main measures

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Provider and practice characteristics associated with use of rapid HIV Testing by general internists.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets