Factors Influencing Uptake of Rapid HIV and Hepatitis C Screening Among Drug Misusing Adult Emergency Department Patients: Implications for Future HIV/HCV Screening Interventions.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Merchant RC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4600425 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Factors Influencing Uptake of Rapid HIV and Hepatitis C Screening Among Drug Misusing Adult Emergency Department Patients: Implications for Future HIV/HCV Screening Interventions.
Merchant Roland C RC DeLong Allison K AK Liu Tao T Baird Janette R JR
AIDS and behavior 20151101 11
In this randomized, controlled trial among 957 English- or Spanish-speaking drug misusing adult emergency department (ED) patients, we determined if a tailored brief intervention (BI) increased uptake of rapid HIV/HCV screening, and identified factors associated with greater screening uptake. Rapid HIV/HCV screening uptake was greater in the control than the BI arm (45 vs. 38 %; p < 0.04). Screening uptake depended on elapsed study time and which research staff member offered testing. In the con ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:In this study, Increasing Viral Testing in the Emergency Department (InVITED), the authors investigated if a brief intervention about human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) risk-taking behaviors and drug use and misuse in addition to a self-administered risk assessment, compared to a self-administered risk assessment alone, increased uptake of combined screening for HIV and HCV, self-perception of HIV/HCV risk, and impacted beliefs and opinions on HIV/HCV screening.InVITED was a randomized, controlled trial conducted at two urban emergency departments (EDs) from February 2011 to March 2012. ED patients who self-reported drug use within the past 3 months were invited to enroll. Drug misuse severity and need for a brief or more intensive intervention was assessed using the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). Participants were randomly assigned to one of two study arms: a self-administered HIV/HCV risk assessment alone (control arm) or the assessment plus a brief intervention about their drug misuse and screening for HIV/HCV (intervention arm). Beliefs on the value of combined HIV/HCV screening, self-perception of HIV/HCV risk, and opinions on HIV/HCV screening in the ED were measured in both study arms before the HIV/HCV risk assessment (pre), after the assessment in the control arm, and after the brief intervention in the intervention arm (post). Participants in both study arms were offered free combined rapid HIV/HCV screening. Uptake of screening was compared by study arm. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate factors related to uptake of screening.Of the 395 participants in the study, the median age was 28 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 23 to 38 years), 44.8% were female, 82.3% had ever been tested for HIV, and 67.3% had ever been tested for HCV. Uptake of combined rapid HIV/HCV screening was nearly identical by study arm (64.5% vs. 65.2%; ? = -0.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -10.1% to 8.7%). Of the 256 screened, none had reactive HIV antibody tests, but seven (2.7%) had reactive HCV antibody tests. Multivariable logistic regression analysis results indicated that uptake of screening was not related to study arm assignment, total ASSIST drug scores, need for an intervention for drug misuse, or HIV/HCV sexual risk assessment scores. However, uptake of screening was greater among participants who indicated placing a higher value on combined rapid HIV/HCV screening for themselves and all ED patients and those with higher levels of perceived HIV/HCV risk. Uptake of combined rapid HIV/HCV screening was not related to changes in beliefs regarding the value of combined HIV/HCV screening or self-perceived HIV/HCV risk (post- vs. pre-risk assessment with or without a brief intervention). Opinions regarding the ED as a venue for combined rapid HIV/HCV screening were not related to uptake of screening.Uptake of combined rapid HIV/HCV screening is high and considered valuable among drug using and misusing ED patients with little concern about the ED as a screening venue. The brief intervention investigated in this study does not appear to change beliefs regarding screening, self-perceived risk, or uptake of screening for HIV/HCV in this population. Initial beliefs regarding the value of screening and self-perceived risk for these infections predict uptake of screening.
| S-EPMC4135533 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEmergency department (ED) patients comprise a high-risk population for alcohol misuse and sexual risk for HIV. In order to design future interventions to increase HIV screening uptake, we examined the interrelationship among alcohol misuse, sexual risk for HIV and HIV screening uptake among these patients.MethodsA random sample of 18-64-year-old English- or Spanish-speaking patients at two EDs during July-August 2009 completed a self-administered questionnaire about their alcohol use using the Alcohol Use Questionnaire, the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), and the HIV Sexual Risk Questionnaire. Study participants were offered a rapid HIV test after completing the questionnaires. Binging (? five drinks/occasion for men, ? four drinks for women) was assessed and sex-specific alcohol misuse severity levels (low-risk, harmful, hazardous, dependence) were calculated using AUDIT scores. Analyses were limited to participants who had sexual intercourse in the past 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the associations between HIV screening uptake and (1) alcohol misuse, (2) sexual risk for HIV, and (3) the intersection of HIV sexual risk and alcohol misuse. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. All models were adjusted for patient demographic characteristics and separate models for men and women were constructed.ResultsOf 524 participants (55.0% female), 58.4% identified as white, non-Hispanic, and 72% reported previous HIV testing. Approximately 75% of participants reported drinking alcohol within the past 30 days and 74.5% of men and 59.6% of women reported binge drinking. A relationship was found between reported sexual risk for HIV and alcohol use among men (AOR 3.31 [CI 1.51-7.24]) and women (AOR 2.78 [CI 1.48-5.23]). Women who reported binge drinking were more likely to have higher reported sexual risk for HIV (AOR 2.55 [CI 1.40-4.64]) compared to women who do not report binge drinking. HIV screening uptake was not higher among those with greater alcohol misuse and sexual risk among men or women.ConclusionsThe apparent disconnection between HIV screening uptake and alcohol misuse and sexual risk for HIV among ED patients in this study is concerning. Brief interventions emphasizing these associations should be evaluated to reduce alcohol misuse and sexual risk and increase the uptake of ED HIV screening.
| S-EPMC3686630 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We determine whether (1) an audiocomputer-delivered tailored feedback intervention increases emergency department (ED) patient uptake of opt-in, nontargeted rapid HIV screening; and (2) uptake is greater among patients who report more HIV risk and among those whose self-perceived HIV risk increases from baseline after completion of an HIV risk assessment.ED patients aged 18 to 64 years were randomly assigned to receive either an assessment about reported and self-perceived HIV risk or an identical assessment plus feedback about their risk for having or acquiring an HIV infection, tailored according to their reported risk. All participants were offered a fingerstick rapid HIV test. Two-sample tests of binomial proportions were used to compare screening uptake by study arm. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the relationship of reported HIV risk and an increase in self-perceived HIV risk with uptake of HIV screening.Of the 566 participants, the median age was 29 years, 62.2% were women, and 66.9% previously had been tested for HIV. Uptake of HIV screening was similar in the intervention and no intervention arms (54.1% versus 55.5% [?=-0.01%; 95% confidence interval {CI} -0.09% to 0.07%]). An increase in self-perceived HIV risk predicted greater uptake of HIV screening for women (odds ratio 2.15; 95% CI 1.08 to 4.28) but not men (odds ratio 1.61; 95% CI 0.60 to 4.30). Uptake of HIV screening was not related to reported HIV risk.Uptake of rapid HIV screening in the ED was not improved by this feedback intervention. Other methods need to be investigated to improve uptake of HIV screening by ED patients.
| S-EPMC3205940 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that among older adults (?65 years), falls are the leading cause of injury-related death. Fall-related fractures among older women are more than twice as frequent as those for men. Gender-specific evidence-based fall prevention strategy and intervention studies show that improved patient-centered outcomes are elusive. There is a paucity of emergency medicine literature on the topic. As part of the 2014 Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) consensus conference on "Gender-Specific Research in Emergency Care: Investigate, Understand, and Translate How Gender Affects Patient Outcomes," a breakout group convened to generate a research agenda on priority questions to be answered on this topic. The consensus-based priority research agenda is presented in this article.
| S-EPMC4271844 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPrevious studies have shown that substantial percentages of emergency department (ED) patients in the USA recommended for HIV or hepatitis C (HCV) decline testing. Evidence-based and cost-effective interventions to improve HIV/HCV testing uptake are needed, particularly for people who inject drugs (PWIDs) (currently or formerly), who comprise a group at higher risk for these infections. We developed a brief persuasive health communication intervention (PHCI) designed to convince ED patients who had declined HIV/HCV testing to agree to be tested. In this investigation, we will determine if the PHCI is more efficacious in convincing ED patients to be tested for HIV/HCV when delivered by a video or in person, and whether efficacy is similar among individuals who currently, previously or never injected drugs.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a multisite, randomised controlled trial comparing PHCIs delivered by video versus in person by a health educator to determine which delivery method convinces more ED patients who had declined HIV/HCV testing instead to be tested. We will stratify randomisation by PWID status (current, former or never/non-PWID) to permit analyses comparing the PHCI delivery method by injection-drug use history. We will also perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the interventions compared with current practice, examining the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between the two interventions for the ED population overall and within individual strata of PWID. As an exploratory analysis, we will assess if a PHCI video with captions confers increased or decreased acceptance of HIV/HCV testing, as compared with a PHCI video without captions.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol has been approved by the institutional review board of the Icahn School of Medicine. The results will be disseminated at international conferences and in peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration numberNCT05968573.
| S-EPMC11331935 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Universal HIV screening is recommended but challenging to implement. Selectively targeting those at risk is thought to miss cases, but previous studies are limited by narrow risk criteria, incomplete implementation, and absence of direct comparisons. We hypothesized that targeted HIV screening, when fully implemented and using maximally broad risk criteria, could detect nearly as many cases as universal screening with many fewer tests. METHODS:This single-center cluster-randomized trial compared universal and targeted patient selection for HIV screening in a lower prevalence urban emergency department. Patients were excluded for age (<18 and >64 years), known HIV infection, or previous approach for HIV testing that day. Targeted screening was offered for any risk indicator identified from charts, staff referral, or self-disclosure. Universal screening was offered regardless of risk. Baseline seroprevalence was estimated from consecutive deidentified blood samples. RESULTS:There were 9572 eligible visits during which the patient was approached. For universal screening, 40.8% (1915/4692) consented with 6 being newly diagnosed [0.31%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.13% to 0.65%]. For targeted screening, 37% (1813/4880) had no testing indication. Of the 3067 remaining, 47.4% (1454) consented with 3 being newly diagnosed (0.22%, 95% CI: 0.06% to 0.55%). Estimated seroprevalence was 0.36% (95% CI: 0.16% to 0.70%). Targeted screening had a higher proportion consenting (47.4% vs. 40.8%, P < 0.002), but a lower proportion of ED encounters with testing (29.7% vs. 40.7%, P < 0.002). CONCLUSIONS:Targeted screening, even when fully implemented with maximally permissive selection, offered no important increase in positivity rate or decrease in tests performed. Universal screening diagnosed more cases, because more were tested, despite a modestly lower consent rate.
| S-EPMC4241750 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We compare rates of rapid HIV testing, test offer, and acceptance in an urban emergency department (ED) when conducted by dedicated HIV counselors versus current members of the ED staff.The Universal Screening for HIV Infection in the Emergency Room [USHER] trial is a prospective randomized controlled trial that implemented an HIV screening program in the ED of an urban tertiary medical center. ED patients were screened and consented for trial enrollment by an USHER research assistant. Eligible subjects were randomized to rapid HIV testing (oral OraQuick) offered by a dedicated counselor (counselor arm) or by an ED provider (provider arm). In the counselor arm, counselors-without other clinical responsibilities-assumed nearly all testing-related activities (consent, counseling, delivery of test results). In the provider arm, trained ED emergency service assistants (nursing assistants) consented and tested the participant in the context of other ED-related responsibilities. In this arm, ED house officers, physician assistants, or attending physicians provided HIV test results to trial participants. Outcome measures were rates of HIV testing and test offer among individuals consenting for study participation. Among individuals offered the test, test acceptance was also measured.From February 2007 through July 2008, 8,187 eligible patients were approached in the ED, and 4,855 (59%) consented and were randomized to trial participation. The mean age was 37 years, 65% were women, and 42% were white. The overall testing rate favored the counselor arm (57% versus 27%; P<.001); 80% (1,959/2,446) of subjects in the counselor arm were offered an HIV test compared with 36% (861/2,409) in the provider arm (P<.001). HIV test acceptance was slightly higher in the provider arm (counselor arm 71% versus provider arm 75%; P = .025).Routine rapid HIV testing in the ED was accomplished more frequently by dedicated HIV counselors than by ED staff in the course of routine clinical work. Without dedicated staff, HIV testing in this setting may not be truly routine.
| S-EPMC3268065 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportanceThe National HIV Strategic Plan for the US recommends HIV screening in emergency departments (EDs). The most effective approach to ED-based HIV screening remains unknown.ObjectiveTo compare strategies for HIV screening when integrated into usual ED practice.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial included patients visiting EDs at 4 US urban hospitals between April 2014 and January 2016. Patients included were ages 16 years or older, not critically ill or mentally altered, not known to have an HIV positive status, and with an anticipated length of stay 30 minutes or longer. Data were analyzed through March 2021.InterventionsConsecutive patients underwent concealed randomization to either nontargeted screening, enhanced targeted screening using a quantitative HIV risk prediction tool, or traditional targeted screening as adapted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Screening was integrated into clinical practice using opt-out consent and fourth-generation antigen-antibody assays.Main outcomes and measuresNew HIV diagnoses using intention-to-treat analysis, absolute differences, and risk ratios (RRs).ResultsA total of 76 561 patient visits were randomized; median (interquartile range) age was 40 (28-54) years, 34 807 patients (51.2%) were women, and 26 776 (39.4%) were Black, 22 131 (32.6%) non-Hispanic White, and 14 542 (21.4%) Hispanic. A total of 25 469 were randomized to nontargeted screening; 25 453, enhanced targeted screening; and 25 639, traditional targeted screening. Of the nontargeted group, 6744 participants (26.5%) completed testing and 10 (0.15%) were newly diagnosed; of the enhanced targeted group, 13 883 participants (54.5%) met risk criteria, 4488 (32.3%) completed testing, and 7 (0.16%) were newly diagnosed; and of the traditional targeted group, 7099 participants (27.7%) met risk criteria, 3173 (44.7%) completed testing, and 7 (0.22%) were newly diagnosed. When compared with nontargeted screening, targeted strategies were not associated with a higher rate of new diagnoses (enhanced targeted and traditional targeted combined: difference, -0.01%; 95% CI, -0.04% to 0.02%; RR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.56; P = .38; and enhanced targeted only: difference, -0.01%; 95% CI, -0.04% to 0.02%; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.84; P = .47).Conclusions and relevanceTargeted HIV screening was not superior to nontargeted HIV screening in the ED. Nontargeted screening resulted in significantly more tests performed, although all strategies identified relatively low numbers of new HIV diagnoses.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01781949.
| S-EPMC8314142 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A physician's recommendation is the most effective published method of motivating HPV vaccination initiation. The emergency department (ED) is the 'public health safety net', and often the only access to care for underserved populations. Recommendation of the HPV vaccine in the ED is a potential avenue to improve vaccination rates among sub-populations who do not have access to routine medical care. We assessed willingness of EM physicians to recommend the vaccine, target high-risk women, and disclose perceived barriers to vaccination in the ED. A cross sectional study using an 11-item survey, was used to assess physician attitudes toward recommending the HPV vaccine in an ED setting to age eligible patients. 67.4% stated they would recommend the vaccine, 23.9% were neutral, and 8.7% would not recommend the vaccine to age eligible patients in the ED. 41% noted lack of adequate reimbursement for vaccination as a barrier to vaccination in the ED (P<0.05). Physicians were comfortable targeting women at high risk for cervical cancer for vaccination (P<0.05). EM physicians are comfortable targeting high-risk women for HPV vaccination in an ED setting. Support of EM physicians in the national effort to improve HPV vaccine uptake is an important step in eradicating a largely preventable yet lethal cancer.
| S-EPMC4977447 | biostudies-other
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the effect of emergency department (ED) interventions on clinical, utilization, and care experience outcomes for older adults. DESIGN:A conceptual model informed, protocol-based systematic review. SETTING:Emergency Department (ED). PARTICIPANTS:Older adults 65 years of age and older. METHODS AND MEASUREMENT:Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched for English-language studies published through December 2017. Studies evaluating the use of one or more eligible intervention strategies (discharge planning, case management, medication safety or management, and geriatric EDs including those that cited the 2014 Geriatric ED Guidelines) with adults 65?years of age and older were included. Studies were classified by the number of intervention strategies used (ie, single strategy or multi-strategy) and key intervention components present (ie, assessment, referral plus follow-up, and contact both before and after ED discharge ["bridge"]). The effect of ED interventions on clinical (functional status, quality of life [QOL]), patient experience, and utilization (hospitalization, ED return visit) outcomes was evaluated. RESULTS:A total of 2000 citations were identified; 17 articles describing 15 unique studies (9 randomized and 6 nonrandomized) met eligibility criteria and were included in analyses. ED interventions showed a mixed pattern of effects. Overall, there was a small positive effect of ED interventions on functional status but no effects on QOL, patient experience, hospitalization at or after the initial ED index visit, or ED return visit. CONCLUSION:Studies using two or more intervention strategies may be associated with the greatest effects on clinical and utilization outcomes. More comprehensive interventions, defined as those with all three key intervention components present, may be associated with some positive outcomes.
| S-EPMC6677239 | biostudies-literature