Amy Nunn1, Caitlin Towey2, Philip A Chan3, Sharon Parker4, Emily Nichols5, Patrick Oleskey5, Annajane Yolken2, Julia Harvey2, Geetanjoli Banerjee6, Thomas Stopka7, Stacey Trooskin8. 1. Rhode Island Public Health Institute, Providence, RI; Brown University, School of Public Health, Providence, RI. 2. Rhode Island Public Health Institute, Providence, RI. 3. Brown University, School of Public Health, Providence, RI. 4. North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, NC. 5. Family Practice & Counseling Network, Philadelphia, PA. 6. Brown University, School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Providence, RI. 7. Tufts University, School of Medicine, Boston, MA. 8. Drexel University, College of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases and HIV Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: CDC has recommended routine HIV screening since 2006. However, few community health centers (CHCs) routinely offer HIV screening. Research is needed to understand how to implement routine HIV screening programs, particularly in medically underserved neighborhoods with high rates of HIV infection. A routine HIV screening program was implemented and evaluated in a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, neighborhood with high rates of HIV infection. METHODS: Implementation science is the study of methods to promote the integration of research findings and evidence into health-care policy and practice. Using an implementation science approach, the results of the program were evaluated by measuring acceptability, adoption, and penetration of routine HIV screening. RESULTS: A total of 5,878 individuals were screened during the program. HIV screening was highly accepted among clinic patients. In an initial needs assessment of 516 patients, 362 (70.2%) patients reported that they would accept testing if offered. Routine screening policies were adopted clinic-wide. Staff trainings, new electronic medical records that prompted staff members to offer screening and evaluate screening rates, and other continuing quality-improvement policies helped promote screenings. HIV screening offer rates improved from an estimated 5.0% of eligible patients at baseline in March 2012 to an estimated 59.3% of eligible patients in December 2014. However, only 5,878 of 13,827 (42.5%) patients who were offered screening accepted it, culminating in a 25.2% overall screening rate. Seventeen of the 5,878 patients tested positive, for a seropositivity rate of 0.3%. CONCLUSION: Routine HIV screening at CHCs in neighborhoods with high rates of HIV infection is feasible. Routine screening is an important tool to improve HIV care continuum outcomes and to address racial and geographic disparities in HIV infection.
OBJECTIVE: CDC has recommended routine HIV screening since 2006. However, few community health centers (CHCs) routinely offer HIV screening. Research is needed to understand how to implement routine HIV screening programs, particularly in medically underserved neighborhoods with high rates of HIV infection. A routine HIV screening program was implemented and evaluated in a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, neighborhood with high rates of HIV infection. METHODS: Implementation science is the study of methods to promote the integration of research findings and evidence into health-care policy and practice. Using an implementation science approach, the results of the program were evaluated by measuring acceptability, adoption, and penetration of routine HIV screening. RESULTS: A total of 5,878 individuals were screened during the program. HIV screening was highly accepted among clinic patients. In an initial needs assessment of 516 patients, 362 (70.2%) patients reported that they would accept testing if offered. Routine screening policies were adopted clinic-wide. Staff trainings, new electronic medical records that prompted staff members to offer screening and evaluate screening rates, and other continuing quality-improvement policies helped promote screenings. HIV screening offer rates improved from an estimated 5.0% of eligible patients at baseline in March 2012 to an estimated 59.3% of eligible patients in December 2014. However, only 5,878 of 13,827 (42.5%) patients who were offered screening accepted it, culminating in a 25.2% overall screening rate. Seventeen of the 5,878 patients tested positive, for a seropositivity rate of 0.3%. CONCLUSION: Routine HIV screening at CHCs in neighborhoods with high rates of HIV infection is feasible. Routine screening is an important tool to improve HIV care continuum outcomes and to address racial and geographic disparities in HIV infection.
Authors: H Irene Hall; Ruiguang Song; Philip Rhodes; Joseph Prejean; Qian An; Lisa M Lee; John Karon; Ron Brookmeyer; Edward H Kaplan; Matthew T McKenna; Robert S Janssen Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-08-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kristen Mahle Gray; Tian Tang; Luke Shouse; Jianmin Li; Jonathan Mermin; H Irene Hall Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Nancy S Sung; William F Crowley; Myron Genel; Patricia Salber; Lewis Sandy; Louis M Sherwood; Stephen B Johnson; Veronica Catanese; Hugh Tilson; Kenneth Getz; Elaine L Larson; David Scheinberg; E Albert Reece; Harold Slavkin; Adrian Dobs; Jack Grebb; Rick A Martinez; Allan Korn; David Rimoin Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-03-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Xia Lin; Patricia M Dietz; Vanessa Rodriguez; Deborah Lester; Paloma Hernandez; Lisa Moreno-Walton; Grant Johnson; Michelle M Van Handel; Jacek Skarbinski; Christine L Mattson; Dale Stratford; Lisa Belcher; Bernard M Branson Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2014-06-27 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Merhawi T Gebrezgi; Daniel E Mauck; Diana M Sheehan; Kristopher P Fennie; Elena Cyrus; Abraham Degarege; Mary Jo Trepka Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2019-07-31 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Amy Nunn; Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein; Jennifer Rose; Kenneth Mayer; Thomas Stopka; Caitlin Towey; Julia Harvey; Karina Santamaria; Kelly Sabatino; Stacey Trooskin; Philip A Chan Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Karen W Hoover; Ya-Lin A Huang; Mary L Tanner; Weiming Zhu; Naomie W Gathua; Marc A Pitasi; Elizabeth A DiNenno; Suma Nair; Kevin P Delaney Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2020-06-26 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Rebecca Lengnick-Hall; Donald R Gerke; Enola K Proctor; Alicia C Bunger; Rebecca J Phillips; Jared K Martin; Julia C Swanson Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Thomas J Stopka; Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein; Kendra Johnson; Philip A Chan; Marga Hutcheson; Richard Crosby; Deirdre Burke; Leandro Mena; Amy Nunn Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill Date: 2018-04-03