BACKGROUND: HIV testing is cost-effective in unselected general medical populations, yet testing rates among those at risk remain low, even among those with regular primary care. HIV rapid testing is effective in many healthcare settings, but scant research has been done within primary care settings or within the US Department of Veteran's Affairs Healthcare System. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated three methods proven effective in other diseases/settings: nurse standing orders for testing, streamlined counseling, and HIV rapid testing. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial with three intervention models: model A (traditional counseling/testing); model B (nurse-initiated screening, traditional counseling/testing); model C (nurse-initiated screening, streamlined counseling/rapid testing). PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred fifty-one patients with primary/urgent care appointments in two VA clinics in the same city (one large urban hospital, one freestanding outpatient clinic in a high HIV prevalence area). MEASUREMENTS: Rates of HIV testing and receipt of results; sexual risk reduction; HIV knowledge improvement. RESULTS:Testing rates were 40.2% (model A), 84.5% (model B), and 89.3% (model C; p = <.01). Test result receipt rates were 14.6% (model A), 31.0% (model B), 79.8% (model C; all p = <.01). Sexual risk reduction and knowledge improvement did not differ significantly between counseling methods. CONCLUSIONS: Streamlined counseling with rapid testing significantly increased testing and receipt rates over current practice without changes in risk behavior or posttest knowledge. Increased testing and receipt of results could lead to earlier disease identification, increased treatment, and reduced morbidity/mortality. Policymakers should consider streamlined counseling/rapid testing when implementing routine HIV testing into primary/urgent care.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: HIV testing is cost-effective in unselected general medical populations, yet testing rates among those at risk remain low, even among those with regular primary care. HIV rapid testing is effective in many healthcare settings, but scant research has been done within primary care settings or within the US Department of Veteran's Affairs Healthcare System. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated three methods proven effective in other diseases/settings: nurse standing orders for testing, streamlined counseling, and HIV rapid testing. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial with three intervention models: model A (traditional counseling/testing); model B (nurse-initiated screening, traditional counseling/testing); model C (nurse-initiated screening, streamlined counseling/rapid testing). PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred fifty-one patients with primary/urgent care appointments in two VA clinics in the same city (one large urban hospital, one freestanding outpatient clinic in a high HIV prevalence area). MEASUREMENTS: Rates of HIV testing and receipt of results; sexual risk reduction; HIV knowledge improvement. RESULTS: Testing rates were 40.2% (model A), 84.5% (model B), and 89.3% (model C; p = <.01). Test result receipt rates were 14.6% (model A), 31.0% (model B), 79.8% (model C; all p = <.01). Sexual risk reduction and knowledge improvement did not differ significantly between counseling methods. CONCLUSIONS: Streamlined counseling with rapid testing significantly increased testing and receipt rates over current practice without changes in risk behavior or posttest knowledge. Increased testing and receipt of results could lead to earlier disease identification, increased treatment, and reduced morbidity/mortality. Policymakers should consider streamlined counseling/rapid testing when implementing routine HIV testing into primary/urgent care.
Authors: Richard E Rothman; Kerunne S Ketlogetswe; Teresa Dolan; Peter C Wyer; Gabor D Kelen Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Freya Spielberg; Bernard M Branson; Gary M Goldbaum; David Lockhart; Ann Kurth; Connie L Celum; Anthony Rossini; Cathy W Critchlow; Robert W Wood Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2003-03-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: W O Spitzer; D L Sackett; J C Sibley; R S Roberts; M Gent; D J Kergin; B C Hackett; A Olynich Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1974-01-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gail V Berkenblit; James M Sosman; Michael Bass; Hirut T Gebrekristos; Joseph Cofrancesco; Lynn E Sullivan; Robert L Cook; Marcia Edison; Philip G Bashook; P Todd Korthuis Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Matthew J Mimiaga; Carey V Johnson; Sari L Reisner; Rodney Vanderwarker; Kenneth H Mayer Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2011 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Henry D Anaya; Jaimi N Butler; Herschel Knapp; Kee Chan; Erin E Conners; Sophia F Rumanes Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: James L Harmon; Michelle Collins-Ogle; John A Bartlett; Julie Thompson; Julie Barroso Journal: J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care Date: 2013-04-09 Impact factor: 1.354
Authors: Gillian D Sanders; Henry D Anaya; Steven Asch; Tuyen Hoang; Joya F Golden; Ahmed M Bayoumi; Douglas K Owens Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Matthew Bidwell Goetz; Tuyen Hoang; S Randal Henry; Herschel Knapp; Henry D Anaya; Allen L Gifford; Steven M Asch Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2009-10-02 Impact factor: 5.128