Monica Desai1, Sarah C Woodhall1, Anthony Nardone2, Fiona Burns3, Danielle Mercey4, Richard Gilson4. 1. HIV & STI Department, Public Health England, London, UK Research Department of Infection and Population Health, University College London, London, UK. 2. HIV & STI Department, Public Health England, London, UK. 3. Research Department of Infection and Population Health, University College London, London, UK Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 4. Research Department of Infection and Population Health, University College London, London, UK Mortimer Market Centre, Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Active recall can improve reattendance rates and could increase retesting rates and detection of HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), but the best strategy remains uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of active recall for HIV and/or STI testing. We searched six electronic databases using terms for HIV, STIs, tests and active recall (defined as a reminder to retest for HIV/STIs) for randomised, non-randomised and observational English-language studies published between 1983 and 2013. Outcomes included reattendance/retesting rate and STI diagnosis at follow-up. RESULTS: Of 5634 papers identified, 17 met the inclusion criteria. Of the 14 comparative studies, all but one demonstrated higher reattendance/retesting rates in the intervention group, but the range was wide (17.5-89%). Meta-analysis of nine RCTs found reattendance/retesting rates were significantly higher in the intervention versus control groups (pooled OR 2.42 (95% CI 1.84 to 3.19)). In a subgroup analysis, home sampling increased retesting compared with clinic testing (pooled OR 2.20 (95% CI 1.65 to 2.94)). In observational studies SMS reminders increased retesting compared with standard clinic care (pooled OR 2.19 (95% CI 1.46 to 3.29)), but study estimates were highly heterogeneous (I(2)=94%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Active recall interventions are associated with higher reattendance/retesting rates for HIV/STI. Although home sampling and SMS reminders were associated with higher reattendance/retesting rates in most studies, evidence is limited by the heterogeneity of interventions and control groups and the quality of studies. Further work is needed to explore which active recall modality is clinically cost-effective and acceptable for HIV/STI screening. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND: Active recall can improve reattendance rates and could increase retesting rates and detection of HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), but the best strategy remains uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of active recall for HIV and/or STI testing. We searched six electronic databases using terms for HIV, STIs, tests and active recall (defined as a reminder to retest for HIV/STIs) for randomised, non-randomised and observational English-language studies published between 1983 and 2013. Outcomes included reattendance/retesting rate and STI diagnosis at follow-up. RESULTS: Of 5634 papers identified, 17 met the inclusion criteria. Of the 14 comparative studies, all but one demonstrated higher reattendance/retesting rates in the intervention group, but the range was wide (17.5-89%). Meta-analysis of nine RCTs found reattendance/retesting rates were significantly higher in the intervention versus control groups (pooled OR 2.42 (95% CI 1.84 to 3.19)). In a subgroup analysis, home sampling increased retesting compared with clinic testing (pooled OR 2.20 (95% CI 1.65 to 2.94)). In observational studies SMS reminders increased retesting compared with standard clinic care (pooled OR 2.19 (95% CI 1.46 to 3.29)), but study estimates were highly heterogeneous (I(2)=94%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Active recall interventions are associated with higher reattendance/retesting rates for HIV/STI. Although home sampling and SMS reminders were associated with higher reattendance/retesting rates in most studies, evidence is limited by the heterogeneity of interventions and control groups and the quality of studies. Further work is needed to explore which active recall modality is clinically cost-effective and acceptable for HIV/STI screening. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Entities:
Keywords:
HEALTH SERV RESEARCH; HIV; SEXUAL HEALTH; TESTING
Authors: Keshet Ronen; Matthew R Golden; Julia C Dombrowski; Roxanne P Kerani; Teal R Bell; David A Katz Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Laura McWhirter; Yingbo Lou; Sarah Reingold; Sarah Warsh; Tara Thomas-Gale; Christine Haynes; Deborah Rinehart; Karen A Wendel; Holly M Frost Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 3.868
Authors: Jannie J van der Helm; Rik H Koekenbier; Martijn S van Rooijen; Maarten F Schim van der Loeff; Henry J C de Vries Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Kevin Pottie; Tamara Lotfi; Lama Kilzar; Pamela Howeiss; Nesrine Rizk; Elie A Akl; Sonia Dias; Beverly-Ann Biggs; Robin Christensen; Prinon Rahman; Olivia Magwood; Anh Tran; Nick Rowbotham; Anastasia Pharris; Teymur Noori; Manish Pareek; Rachael Morton Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Anna Unutzer; Julia C Dombrowski; David A Katz; Lindley A Barbee; Matthew R Golden; Christine M Khosropour Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 3.868
Authors: Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers; Kevin A T M Theunissen; Petra T Wolffs; Gerjo Kok; Christian J P A Hoebe Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 3.240