Dataset Information

Facilitating HIV/AIDS and HIV testing literacy for emergency department patients: a randomized, controlled, trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Although this has not been fully studied, videos and pictorial brochures might be equivalent methods of delivering HIV/AIDS and HIV testing information to emergency departments (ED) patients. It also is not known how well or for how long such knowledge is retained, if this information should be tailored according to patient health literacy, and if retention of this knowledge impacts future HIV testing behavior. METHODS:We will conduct a multi-site, randomized, controlled, longitudinal trial among 600 English- and 600 Spanish-speaking 18-64-year-old ED patients to investigate these questions. We will stratify our sample within language (English vs. Spanish) by health literacy level (lower vs. higher) and randomly assign patients to receive HIV/AIDS and HIV testing information by video or pictorial brochure. All patients will be tested for HIV in the ED. At 12-months post-enrollment, we will invite participants to be tested again for HIV. As primary aims, we will compare the efficacy of pictorial brochures and videos in improving short-term (in ED) HIV/AIDS and HIV testing knowledge and retaining this knowledge over 12 months. We will determine if and how short-term improvement and longer-term retention of knowledge interacts with information delivery mode (pictorial brochure or video), patient health literacy level (lower or higher), and language (English or Spanish). As secondary aims, using the Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills (IMB) model as a heuristic framework, we will measure constructs from the IMB model relevant to our study, and assess their impact on HIV re-testing behavior; we will also examine the moderating influences of information delivery mode, language, and health literacy level. In addition, we will explore simplified screening strategies to identify ED patients with lower health literacy as ways to implement a tailored approach to HIV/AIDS and HIV testing information delivery in EDs. DISCUSSION:Study findings will guide ED-based delivery of HIV/AIDS and HIV testing information; that is, whether delivery modes (video or pictorial brochure) should be selected for patients by language and/or health literacy level. The results also will inform EDs when, how, and for whom information needs to be provided for those undergoing testing again for HIV within a one-year period. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02284451 . Posted November 6, 2014.

SUBMITTER: Merchant RC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6038177 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Facilitating HIV/AIDS and HIV testing literacy for emergency department patients: a randomized, controlled, trial.

Merchant Roland C RC Liu Tao T Clark Melissa A MA Carey Michael P MP

BMC emergency medicine 20180709 1

<h4>Background</h4>Although this has not been fully studied, videos and pictorial brochures might be equivalent methods of delivering HIV/AIDS and HIV testing information to emergency departments (ED) patients. It also is not known how well or for how long such knowledge is retained, if this information should be tailored according to patient health literacy, and if retention of this knowledge impacts future HIV testing behavior.<h4>Methods</h4>We will conduct a multi-site, randomized, controlle ...[more]

PMID: 29986662

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:In Switzerland, the national HIV testing recommendations propose targeted testing. Although the emergency department (ED) is mentioned specifically as a site where HIV testing should take place, the testing rate in our ED is 1% of patients seen. The aim of this study was to use electronic tablets to offer testing to ED patients and to examine whether non-targeted screening increased testing rates compared to targeted testing.This randomised, cross-over design study took place at Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland, between August and November 2015. Eligible patients were randomised to a targeted testing or a non-targeted screening arm. Using electronic tablets, targeted arm patients completed a risk factor assessment; patients with risk factors were offered free rapid HIV testing. Non-targeted arm patients received information about HIV and HIV testing on their tablet and were then offered testing. In a second step, patients who declined testing were crossed over to the other strategy. The primary endpoint was the HIV testing rate per arm.Eighty patients were recruited to each study arm. In the targeted arm, 17 patients (of 80, 21%) had at least one risk factor and were offered testing, of whom eight (of 17, 47%) accepted. HIV testing rate in the targeted arm was 10% (8/80) compared to 48% (38/80) in the non-targeted arm (P<0.001). Secondary cross-screening, where targeted arm patients without risk factors were offered non-targeted screening, increased the testing rate in the targeted arm to 45% (36/80). Among patients offered testing, the acceptance rate did not differ between targeted and non-targeted arms, at 48% and 53%, respectively (P = 0.9).In our centre, non-targeted HIV screening resulted in a higher testing rate than targeted testing due to more patients being offered a test. The acceptance rate of testing offered did not differ between targeted and non-targeted arms. Electronic tablets were well-received by patients and easy to use. We conclude that non-targeted HIV screening using electronic tablets would increase the HIV testing rate in our ED.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03038724.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Approximately 20% of community-dwelling older adults discharged from the emergency department (ED) return to an ED within 30 days, an occurrence partially resulting from poor care transitions. Prior published interventions to improve the ED-to-home transition have either lacked feasibility or effectiveness. The Care Transitions Intervention (CTI) has been validated to decrease rehospitalization among patients transitioning from the hospital to the home but has never been tested for patients transitioning from the ED to the home. Paramedics, traditionally involved only in emergency care, are well-positioned to deliver the CTI, but have never been previously evaluated in this role. METHODS:This single-blinded randomized controlled trial tests whether the paramedic-delivered ED-to-home CTI reduces community-dwelling older adults' ED revisits in the 30 days after an index visit. We are prospectively recruiting patients aged??60 years at 3 EDs in Rochester, NY and Madison, WI to enroll 2400 patient subjects. Subjects are randomized into control and treatment groups, with the latter receiving the adapted CTI. The intervention consists of the paramedic performing one home visit and up to three follow-up phone calls. During these interactions, the paramedic follows the CTI approach by coaching patients toward their goals, with a focus on their personal health record, medication management, red flags, and primary care follow-up. We follow patient participants for 30 days. All receive a survey during the index ED visit to capture baseline demographic and health information and two telephone-based surveys to assess process objectives and outcomes. We also perform a medical record review. The primary outcome is the odds of ED revisit within 30 days after discharge from the index ED visit. DISCUSSION:This is the first study to test whether the CTI, applied to the ED-to-home transition and delivered by community paramedics, can decrease the rate at which older adults revisit an ED. Outcomes from this research will help address a major emergency care challenge by supporting older adults in the transition from the ED to home, thereby improving health outcomes for this population and reducing potentially avoidable ED visits. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Registration: NCT02520661 . Trial registration date: August 13, 2015.

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.

Dataset Information

Facilitating HIV/AIDS and HIV testing literacy for emergency department patients: a randomized, controlled, trial.

Publications

Facilitating HIV/AIDS and HIV testing literacy for emergency department patients: a randomized, controlled, trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets