Pamela W Klein1, Lynne C Messer, Evan R Myers, David J Weber, Peter A Leone, William C Miller. 1. From the *Center for AIDS Intervention Research, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; †Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC; ‡School of Community Health, College of Urban and Public Affairs, Portland State University, Portland, OR; §Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; and ¶HIV/STD Prevention and Care Branch, North Carolina Division of Public Health, Raleigh, NC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of routine, opt-out HIV testing programs in clinical settings is inconclusive. The objective of this study was to estimate the impact of an expanded, routine HIV testing program in North Carolina sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics on HIV testing and case detection. METHODS: Adults aged 18 to 64 years who received an HIV test in a North Carolina STD clinic from July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2011, were included in this analysis, dichotomized at the date of implementation on November 1, 2007. HIV testing and case detection counts and rates were analyzed using interrupted time series analysis and Poisson and multilevel logistic regression. RESULTS: Preintervention, 426 new HIV-infected cases were identified from 128,029 tests (0.33%), whereas 816 new HIV-infected cases were found from 274,745 tests postintervention (0.30%). Preintervention, HIV testing increased by 55 tests per month (95% confidence interval [CI], 41-72), but only 34 tests per month (95% CI, 26-42) postintervention. Increases in HIV testing rates were most pronounced in women and non-Hispanic whites. A slight preintervention decline in case detection was mitigated by the intervention (mean difference, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.05). Increases in case detection rates were observed among women and non-Hispanic blacks. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of a routine HIV screening in North Carolina STD clinics was marginal, with the greatest benefit among persons not traditionally targeted for HIV testing. The use of a preintervention comparison period identified important temporal trends that otherwise would have been ignored.
BACKGROUND: The impact of routine, opt-out HIV testing programs in clinical settings is inconclusive. The objective of this study was to estimate the impact of an expanded, routine HIV testing program in North Carolina sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics on HIV testing and case detection. METHODS: Adults aged 18 to 64 years who received an HIV test in a North Carolina STD clinic from July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2011, were included in this analysis, dichotomized at the date of implementation on November 1, 2007. HIV testing and case detection counts and rates were analyzed using interrupted time series analysis and Poisson and multilevel logistic regression. RESULTS: Preintervention, 426 new HIV-infected cases were identified from 128,029 tests (0.33%), whereas 816 new HIV-infected cases were found from 274,745 tests postintervention (0.30%). Preintervention, HIV testing increased by 55 tests per month (95% confidence interval [CI], 41-72), but only 34 tests per month (95% CI, 26-42) postintervention. Increases in HIV testing rates were most pronounced in women and non-Hispanic whites. A slight preintervention decline in case detection was mitigated by the intervention (mean difference, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.05). Increases in case detection rates were observed among women and non-Hispanic blacks. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of a routine HIV screening in North Carolina STD clinics was marginal, with the greatest benefit among persons not traditionally targeted for HIV testing. The use of a preintervention comparison period identified important temporal trends that otherwise would have been ignored.
Authors: Kristina E Weis; Angela D Liese; James Hussey; James Coleman; Penney Powell; James J Gibson; Wayne A Duffus Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Douglas A E White; Alicia N Scribner; Farnaz Vahidnia; Patrick J Dideum; Danielle M Gordon; Bradley W Frazee; Andrew C Voetsch; James D Heffelfinger Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Brittney Copeland; Bijal Shah; Matthew Wheatley; Katherine Heilpern; Carlos del Rio; Debra Houry Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2012-02-22 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Matthew Bidwell Goetz; Tuyen Hoang; Candice Bowman; Herschel Knapp; Barbara Rossman; Robert Smith; Henry Anaya; Teresa Osborn; Allen L Gifford; Steven M Asch Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-05-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Nicola M Zetola; Carlos G Grijalva; Sarah Gertler; C Bradley Hare; Beth Kaplan; Teri Dowling; Grant Colfax; Mitchell H Katz; Jeffrey D Klausner Journal: PLoS One Date: 2008-07-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Elizabeth Terranova; Benjamin Tsoi; Fabienne Laraque; Kate Washburn; Jennifer Fuld Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2016 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Michael Sang Hughes; Andria Apostolou; Brigg Reilley; Jessica Leston; Jeffrey McCollum; Jonathan Iralu Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2020-12-10 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: María Jesús Pérez Elías; Cristina Gómez-Ayerbe; Pilar Pérez Elías; Alfonso Muriel; Santiago Diaz de Alberto; María Martinez-Colubi; Ana Moreno; Cristina Santos; Lidia Polo; Rafa Barea; Gema Robledillo; Almudena Uranga; Cano Espín Agustina; Carmen Quereda; Fernando Dronda; Jose Luis Casado; Santiago Moreno Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 1.889