Sabrina S Plitt1,2, Trenton R Smith2, Warren Berry3, Mariam Osman4, Ambikaipakan Senthilselvan2, Carmen L Charlton5,6. 1. Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 2. School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 3. School of Public Health, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. 4. Alberta Health, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 5. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Carmen.Charlton@aplabs.ca. 6. Public Health Laboratory, 2B3.07 WMC, University of Alberta Hospitals, 8440 - 112 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2J2, Canada. Carmen.Charlton@aplabs.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Universal prenatal screening in the Canadian province of Alberta employs an 'opt-out' HIV screening strategy. We examined all women giving birth in the province and determined the frequency and characteristics of women having and not having HIV screening. METHODS: All livebirths in Alberta from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2014 were compiled from the Vital Statistics database and linked to HIV screening data to determine maternal demographic and prenatal care characteristics. Correlates associated with prenatal HIV screening, opting out of HIV screening, and not having any prenatal communicable disease screening were determined by multivariable statistics. RESULTS: Of the 256,280 live births, 94.2% had prenatal HIV screening, 1.9% declined prenatal HIV screening, and 3.9% had no record of any prenatal communicable disease testing. Compared with those who had HIV screening, those who opted out of prenatal HIV screening were more likely to be over 40 years of age (adjusted odds ratio (AOR), 2.83 [2.12-3.78]) and less likely to be single (AOR, 0.67 [0.62-0.73]) and First Nations (AOR, 0.67 [0.56-0.82]). Those who received no prenatal communicable disease screening were less likely to be over 40 years of age (AOR, 0.81 [0.69-0.95]) and more likely to be single (AOR, 1.27 [1.21-1.33]) and have received no prenatal care (AOR, 6.78 [6.40-7.19]). Both the HIV decliners and prenatal non-testers were more likely to have used a midwife (AOR, 4.52 [3.83-5.35] and AOR, 2.44 [2.03-2.92], respectively). CONCLUSION: Demographic and prenatal care characteristics differ by a pregnant woman's prenatal screening status. Policies to improve HIV screening coverage should take these variations into account.
OBJECTIVES: Universal prenatal screening in the Canadian province of Alberta employs an 'opt-out' HIV screening strategy. We examined all women giving birth in the province and determined the frequency and characteristics of women having and not having HIV screening. METHODS: All livebirths in Alberta from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2014 were compiled from the Vital Statistics database and linked to HIV screening data to determine maternal demographic and prenatal care characteristics. Correlates associated with prenatal HIV screening, opting out of HIV screening, and not having any prenatal communicable disease screening were determined by multivariable statistics. RESULTS: Of the 256,280 live births, 94.2% had prenatal HIV screening, 1.9% declined prenatal HIV screening, and 3.9% had no record of any prenatal communicable disease testing. Compared with those who had HIV screening, those who opted out of prenatal HIV screening were more likely to be over 40 years of age (adjusted odds ratio (AOR), 2.83 [2.12-3.78]) and less likely to be single (AOR, 0.67 [0.62-0.73]) and First Nations (AOR, 0.67 [0.56-0.82]). Those who received no prenatal communicable disease screening were less likely to be over 40 years of age (AOR, 0.81 [0.69-0.95]) and more likely to be single (AOR, 1.27 [1.21-1.33]) and have received no prenatal care (AOR, 6.78 [6.40-7.19]). Both the HIV decliners and prenatal non-testers were more likely to have used a midwife (AOR, 4.52 [3.83-5.35] and AOR, 2.44 [2.03-2.92], respectively). CONCLUSION: Demographic and prenatal care characteristics differ by a pregnant woman's prenatal screening status. Policies to improve HIV screening coverage should take these variations into account.
Authors: S E MacDonald; L A Hartling; R M Seguin; K S O'Connor; M L Rekart; D L Mowat; J R Hoey Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Suzanne K Whitmore; Allan W Taylor; Lorena Espinoza; R Luke Shouse; Margaret A Lampe; Steven Nesheim Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2011-12-05 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Helen Peters; Kate Francis; Rebecca Sconza; Anna Horn; Catherine S Peckham; Pat A Tookey; Claire Thorne Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Margot Kuo; Deborah M Money; Maria Alvarez; Jane A Buxton; Mel Krajden; Richard T Lester; Gina Ogilvie; Mark Gilbert Journal: J Obstet Gynaecol Can Date: 2014-06
Authors: John C Forbes; Ariane M Alimenti; Joel Singer; Jason C Brophy; Ari Bitnun; Lindy M Samson; Deborah M Money; Terry C K Lee; Normand D Lapointe; Stanley E Read Journal: AIDS Date: 2012-03-27 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Ari Bitnun; Terry Lee; Jason Brophy; Lindy M Samson; Fatima Kakkar; Wendy Vaudry; Ben Tan; Deborah M Money; Joel Singer; Laura J Sauvé; Ariane Alimenti Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2018-05-10
Authors: Emilia H Koumans; Ayanna Harrison; L Duane House; Kim Burley; Nan Ruffo; Ruben Smith; Lauren FitzHarris; Christopher H Johnson; Allan W Taylor; Steven R Nesheim Journal: Int J STD AIDS Date: 2018-07-04 Impact factor: 1.359