BACKGROUND: Routine opt-out provider-initiated HIV testing and counseling (PITC) remains underutilized in sub-Saharan Africa. By selectively targeting clients who either volunteer or have clinical indications of HIV disease, standard approaches to HIV counseling and testing are presumed more cost-efficient than PITC. METHODS: One thousand two hundred twenty-one patients aged 15– 49 years were seen by 22 practitioners in a mobile clinic in southern Zambia. A random sample of physicians was assigned to administer PITC, whereas the remaining practitioners offered standard non- PITC (ie, voluntary or diagnostic). Questionnaires assessed patient demographics and attitudes toward HIV. HIV detection rates were stratified by referral type, demographics, and HIV-related knowledge and attitudes. RESULTS: HIV prevalence was 10.6%. Infection rates detected using PITC [11.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 8.8% to 13.5%] and standard non-PITC (10.0%; 95% CI: 7.5% to 12.5%) did not significantly differ (odds ratio = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.52; P = 0.95). Patients who did not request testing or demonstrate clinical indicators of HIV did not have significantly higher HIV prevalence than those who did (odds ratio = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.24; P = 0.36). Implementation of PITC was highly acceptable and produced a 3-fold increase in patients tested per practitioner compared with standard non-PITC (114 vs. 34 patients per practitioner, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: PITC detected a comparable HIV infection rate as a standard non-PITC approach among rural adults seeking primary care services. Widespread implementation of PITC may therefore lead to significantly more cases of HIV detected.
BACKGROUND: Routine opt-out provider-initiated HIV testing and counseling (PITC) remains underutilized in sub-Saharan Africa. By selectively targeting clients who either volunteer or have clinical indications of HIV disease, standard approaches to HIV counseling and testing are presumed more cost-efficient than PITC. METHODS: One thousand two hundred twenty-one patients aged 15– 49 years were seen by 22 practitioners in a mobile clinic in southern Zambia. A random sample of physicians was assigned to administer PITC, whereas the remaining practitioners offered standard non- PITC (ie, voluntary or diagnostic). Questionnaires assessed patient demographics and attitudes toward HIV. HIV detection rates were stratified by referral type, demographics, and HIV-related knowledge and attitudes. RESULTS:HIV prevalence was 10.6%. Infection rates detected using PITC [11.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 8.8% to 13.5%] and standard non-PITC (10.0%; 95% CI: 7.5% to 12.5%) did not significantly differ (odds ratio = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.52; P = 0.95). Patients who did not request testing or demonstrate clinical indicators of HIV did not have significantly higher HIV prevalence than those who did (odds ratio = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.24; P = 0.36). Implementation of PITC was highly acceptable and produced a 3-fold increase in patients tested per practitioner compared with standard non-PITC (114 vs. 34 patients per practitioner, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: PITC detected a comparable HIV infection rate as a standard non-PITC approach among rural adults seeking primary care services. Widespread implementation of PITC may therefore lead to significantly more cases of HIV detected.
Authors: John Stover; Stefano Bertozzi; Juan-Pablo Gutierrez; Neff Walker; Karen A Stanecki; Robert Greener; Eleanor Gouws; Catherine Hankins; Geoff P Garnett; Joshua A Salomon; J Ties Boerma; Paul De Lay; Peter D Ghys Journal: Science Date: 2006-02-02 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Rhoda K Wanyenze; Cecilia Nawavvu; Alice S Namale; Bernard Mayanja; Rebecca Bunnell; Betty Abang; Gideon Amanyire; Nelson K Sewankambo; Moses R Kamya Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Adebola A Adedimeji; Aba Asibon; Gerard O'Connor; Richard Carson; Ethan Cowan; Philip McKinley; Jason Leider; Patrick Mallon; Yvette Calderon Journal: J Immigr Minor Health Date: 2015-02
Authors: Susan Regan; Elena Losina; Senica Chetty; Janet Giddy; Rochelle P Walensky; Douglas Ross; Helga Holst; Jeffrey N Katz; Kenneth A Freedberg; Ingrid V Bassett Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-04-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Heather N Paulin; Meridith Blevins; John R Koethe; Nicole Hinton; Lara M E Vaz; Alfredo E Vergara; Abraham Mukolo; Elisée Ndatimana; Troy D Moon; Sten H Vermund; C William Wester Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Katharina Kranzer; Darshini Govindasamy; Nathan Ford; Victoria Johnston; Stephen D Lawn Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Felix R Kayigamba; Mirjam I Bakker; Judith Lammers; Veronicah Mugisha; Emmanuel Bagiruwigize; Anita Asiimwe; Maarten F Schim van der Loeff Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-04-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Saeed Ahmed; Monica Schwarz; Robert J Flick; Chris A Rees; Mwelura Harawa; Katie Simon; Jeff A Robison; Peter N Kazembe; Maria H Kim Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: Felix R Kayigamba; Daniëla Van Santen; Mirjam I Bakker; Judith Lammers; Veronicah Mugisha; Emmanuel Bagiruwigize; Ludwig De Naeyer; Anita Asiimwe; Maarten F Schim Van Der Loeff Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 3.090