BACKGROUND: Use of surveillance data including laboratory results (e.g., CD4 and HIV RNA) by public health departments to facilitate linkage, retention, and reengagement of HIV-infected individuals in health care is on the rise. This is part of the goal of increasing the proportion of infected persons achieving virologic suppression. However, this use of surveillance data is not without controversy, particularly among some providers and people living with HIV. METHODS: We conducted informal discussions with key stakeholders and a literature search and held a national think tank in November 2012, bringing together 31 representatives of the federal government, county and state officials, health care providers, and community-based organizations. A follow-up community consultation specific to San Francisco was held January 24, 2014, with 10 participants. Notes from these activities were used as data for this analysis. RESULTS: The think tank identified 3 strategies using HIV surveillance data to aid in care engagement: (1) provider-mediated, where health department staff work with the provider of record on reengagement, (2) electronic linkages between surveillance databases and medical records databases, and (3) direct outreach, where trained health department staff reach out to persons out of care. Participants also developed recommendations for minimizing harm, guidance on meaningful stakeholder involvement, and a consensus statement in support of the use of HIV surveillance data in care engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptance of the use of surveillance data for HIV care linkage, retention, and reengagement is achievable, particularly if stakeholders have been engaged in the design, conduct, and evaluation of programs.
BACKGROUND: Use of surveillance data including laboratory results (e.g., CD4 and HIV RNA) by public health departments to facilitate linkage, retention, and reengagement of HIV-infected individuals in health care is on the rise. This is part of the goal of increasing the proportion of infected persons achieving virologic suppression. However, this use of surveillance data is not without controversy, particularly among some providers and people living with HIV. METHODS: We conducted informal discussions with key stakeholders and a literature search and held a national think tank in November 2012, bringing together 31 representatives of the federal government, county and state officials, health care providers, and community-based organizations. A follow-up community consultation specific to San Francisco was held January 24, 2014, with 10 participants. Notes from these activities were used as data for this analysis. RESULTS: The think tank identified 3 strategies using HIV surveillance data to aid in care engagement: (1) provider-mediated, where health department staff work with the provider of record on reengagement, (2) electronic linkages between surveillance databases and medical records databases, and (3) direct outreach, where trained health department staff reach out to persons out of care. Participants also developed recommendations for minimizing harm, guidance on meaningful stakeholder involvement, and a consensus statement in support of the use of HIV surveillance data in care engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptance of the use of surveillance data for HIV care linkage, retention, and reengagement is achievable, particularly if stakeholders have been engaged in the design, conduct, and evaluation of programs.
Authors: Patricia Sweeney; Lytt I Gardner; Kate Buchacz; Pamela Morse Garland; Michael J Mugavero; Jeffrey T Bosshart; R Luke Shouse; Jeanne Bertolli Journal: Milbank Q Date: 2013-07-08 Impact factor: 4.911
Authors: Stephen F Morin; Simon Morfit; Andre Maiorana; Apinun Aramrattana; Pedro Goicochea; John Michael Mutsambi; Jonathan Leserman Robbins; T Anne Richards Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2008 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Stephen F Morin; Jeffrey A Kelly; Edwin D Charlebois; Robert H Remien; Mary J Rotheram-Borus; Paul D Cleary Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Edward M Gardner; Margaret P McLees; John F Steiner; Carlos Del Rio; William J Burman Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2011-03-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Stephen F Morin; Andre Maiorana; Kimberly A Koester; Nicolas M Sheon; T Anne Richards Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2003-08-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Jane Herwehe; Wayne Wilbright; Amir Abrams; Susan Bergson; Joseph Foxhood; Michael Kaiser; Luis Smith; Ke Xiao; Amy Zapata; Manya Magnus Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-10-28 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Heather Bradley; H Irene Hall; Richard J Wolitski; Michelle M Van Handel; Amy E Stone; Michael LaFlam; Jacek Skarbinski; Darrel H Higa; Joseph Prejean; Emma L Frazier; Roshni Patel; Ping Huang; Qian An; Ruiguang Song; Tian Tang; Linda A Valleroy Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2014-11-28 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Alan E Greenberg; David W Purcell; Christopher M Gordon; Rebecca J Barasky; Carlos del Rio Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2015-05-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Katerina A Christopoulos; Susan Scheer; Wayne T Steward; Revery Barnes; Wendy Hartogensis; Edwin D Charlebois; Stephen F Morin; Hong-Ha M Truong; Elvin H Geng Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2015-05-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Patricia Sweeney; Tamika Hoyte; Mesfin S Mulatu; Jacquelyn Bickham; Antoine D Brantley; Curt Hicks; Shanell L McGoy; Melissa Morrison; Anne Rhodes; Lauren Yerkes; Samuel Burgess; Jessica Fridge; Deborah Wendell Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2018 Nov/Dec Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Mara H Buchbinder; Colleen Blue; Mersedes E Brown; Steve Bradley-Bull; David L Rosen Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 1.723
Authors: Tigran Avoundjian; Julia C Dombrowski; Matthew R Golden; James P Hughes; Brandon L Guthrie; Janet Baseman; Mauricio Sadinle Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill Date: 2020-04-30
Authors: Julia C Dombrowski; James W Carey; Nicole Pitts; Jason Craw; Arin Freeman; Matthew R Golden; Jeanne Bertolli Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-06-10 Impact factor: 3.295