Jemima A Frimpong1, Thomas D'Aunno2, Stéphane Helleringer3, Lisa R Metsch4. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 722 West 168th Street, New York, NY, 10032, USA. Electronic address: jf2584@cumc.columbia.edu. 2. Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, New York University, 295 Lafayette Street, New York, NY, 10012, USA. Electronic address: tdaunno@nyu.edu. 3. Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 615N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. Electronic address: sheller7@jhu.edu. 4. Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 722 West 168th Street, New York, NY, 10032, USA. Electronic address: lm2892@cumc.columbia.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Rapid HIV testing (RHT) greatly increases the proportion of clients who learn their test results. However, existing studies have not examined the adoption and implementation of RHT in programs treating persons with substance use disorders, one of the population groups at higher risk for HIV infection. METHODS: We examined 196 opioid treatment programs (OTPs) using data from the 2011 National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey (NDATSS). We used logistic regressions to identify client and organizational characteristics of OTPs associated with availability of on-site RHT. We then used zero-inflated negative binomial regressions to measure the association between the availability of RHT on-site and the number of clients tested for HIV. RESULTS: Only 31.6% of OTPs offered on-site rapid HIV testing to their clients. Rapid HIV testing was more commonly available on-site in larger, publicly owned and better-staffed OTPs. On the other hand, on-site rapid HIV testing was less common in OTPs that prescribed only buprenorphine as a method of opioid dependence treatment. The availability of rapid HIV testing on-site reduced the likelihood that an OTP did not test any of its clients during the prior year. But on-site availability rapid HIV testing was not otherwise associated with an increased number of clients tested for HIV at an OTP. CONCLUSIONS: New strategies are needed to a) promote the adoption of rapid HIV testing on-site in substance use disorder treatment programs and b) encourage substance use disorder treatment providers to offer rapid HIV testing to their clients when it is available.
INTRODUCTION: Rapid HIV testing (RHT) greatly increases the proportion of clients who learn their test results. However, existing studies have not examined the adoption and implementation of RHT in programs treating persons with substance use disorders, one of the population groups at higher risk for HIV infection. METHODS: We examined 196 opioid treatment programs (OTPs) using data from the 2011 National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey (NDATSS). We used logistic regressions to identify client and organizational characteristics of OTPs associated with availability of on-site RHT. We then used zero-inflated negative binomial regressions to measure the association between the availability of RHT on-site and the number of clients tested for HIV. RESULTS: Only 31.6% of OTPs offered on-site rapid HIV testing to their clients. Rapid HIV testing was more commonly available on-site in larger, publicly owned and better-staffed OTPs. On the other hand, on-site rapid HIV testing was less common in OTPs that prescribed only buprenorphine as a method of opioid dependence treatment. The availability of rapid HIV testing on-site reduced the likelihood that an OTP did not test any of its clients during the prior year. But on-site availability rapid HIV testing was not otherwise associated with an increased number of clients tested for HIV at an OTP. CONCLUSIONS: New strategies are needed to a) promote the adoption of rapid HIV testing on-site in substance use disorder treatment programs and b) encourage substance use disorder treatment providers to offer rapid HIV testing to their clients when it is available.
Authors: Barbara Tempalski; Spencer Lieb; Charles M Cleland; Hannah Cooper; Joanne E Brady; Samuel R Friedman Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2008-11-18 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Steven Kritz; Lawrence S Brown; R Jeffrey Goldsmith; Edmund J Bini; Jim Robinson; Donald Alderson; Patricia Novo; John Rotrosen Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Bernard M Branson; H Hunter Handsfield; Margaret A Lampe; Robert S Janssen; Allan W Taylor; Sheryl B Lyss; Jill E Clark Journal: MMWR Recomm Rep Date: 2006-09-22
Authors: Leah Harvey; Jessica L Taylor; Sabrina A Assoumou; Jessica Kehoe; Elissa M Schechter-Perkins; Edward Bernstein; Alexander Y Walley Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2021 Nov-Dec 01 Impact factor: 3.702
Authors: Sunggeun Ethan Park; Colleen M Grogan; Jennifer E Mosley; Keith Humphreys; Harold A Pollack; Peter D Friedmann Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Nicholas S Riano; Hannah M Borowsky; Emily A Arnold; Mark Olfson; James T Walkup; Eric Vittinghoff; Francine Cournos; Lindsey Dawson; Alexander R Bazazi; Stephen Crystal; Christina Mangurian Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Hannah K Knudsen; Jennifer Cook; Michelle R Lofwall; Sharon L Walsh; Jamie L Studts; Jennifer R Havens Journal: Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy Date: 2017-08-16