Michelle M Gill1, Ola Jahanpour2,3, Roland van de Ven2, Asheri Barankena4, Peris Urasa5, Gretchen Antelman2. 1. Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, Washington, DC, United States of America. 2. Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The Institute of Public Health, Kilimanjaro Christian Medical University College, Moshi, Tanzania. 4. Pact, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 5. Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Children, Dodoma, Tanzania.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: HIV risk screening tool validation studies have not typically included process evaluations to understand tool implementation. The study aim was to assess the fidelity to which an HIV risk screening tool was administered by lay workers and acceptability of delivering home-based screening coupled with HIV testing to beneficiaries in an orphans and vulnerable children (OVC) program. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted March-April 2019 in two regions of Tanzania. Community case workers (CCW) were observed conducting screenings with OVC 2-19 years and participated in focus group discussions. Research staff used structured observation checklists to capture if screening questions were asked or reworded by CCW. In-depth interviews were conducted with older adolescents and caregivers in their homes following screening and testing. A composite score was developed for the checklist. Qualitative data were thematically analyzed to address screening and testing perceptions and experiences. RESULTS: CCW (n = 32) participated in 166 observations. Commonly skipped items were malnutrition (34% of all observed screenings) and sexual activity and pregnancy (20% and 45% of screenings for adolescents only). Items frequently re-worded included child abuse (22%) and malnutrition (15%). CCW had an average composite observation score of 42/50. CCW in focus groups (n = 34) found the screening process acceptable. However, they described rewording some questions viewed as harsh or socially inappropriate to ask. Overall, adolescent beneficiaries (n = 17) and caregivers (n = 25) were satisfied with home-based screening and testing and reported no negative consequences. Learning one's HIV negative status was seen as an opportunity to discuss or recommit to healthy behaviors. While respondents identified multiple benefits of home testing, they noted the potential for privacy breaches in household settings. CONCLUSIONS: We found sub-optimal fidelity to the administration of the screening tool by CCW in home environments to children and adolescents enrolled in an OVC program. Improvements to questions and their delivery and ongoing mentorship could strengthen tool performance and HIV case finding using a targeted testing approach. Overall, home-based HIV risk screening and testing were acceptable to beneficiaries and CCW, could improve testing uptake, and serve as a platform to promote healthy behaviors for those with limited health system interactions.
INTRODUCTION: HIV risk screening tool validation studies have not typically included process evaluations to understand tool implementation. The study aim was to assess the fidelity to which an HIV risk screening tool was administered by lay workers and acceptability of delivering home-based screening coupled with HIV testing to beneficiaries in an orphans and vulnerable children (OVC) program. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted March-April 2019 in two regions of Tanzania. Community case workers (CCW) were observed conducting screenings with OVC 2-19 years and participated in focus group discussions. Research staff used structured observation checklists to capture if screening questions were asked or reworded by CCW. In-depth interviews were conducted with older adolescents and caregivers in their homes following screening and testing. A composite score was developed for the checklist. Qualitative data were thematically analyzed to address screening and testing perceptions and experiences. RESULTS:CCW (n = 32) participated in 166 observations. Commonly skipped items were malnutrition (34% of all observed screenings) and sexual activity and pregnancy (20% and 45% of screenings for adolescents only). Items frequently re-worded included child abuse (22%) and malnutrition (15%). CCW had an average composite observation score of 42/50. CCW in focus groups (n = 34) found the screening process acceptable. However, they described rewording some questions viewed as harsh or socially inappropriate to ask. Overall, adolescent beneficiaries (n = 17) and caregivers (n = 25) were satisfied with home-based screening and testing and reported no negative consequences. Learning one's HIV negative status was seen as an opportunity to discuss or recommit to healthy behaviors. While respondents identified multiple benefits of home testing, they noted the potential for privacy breaches in household settings. CONCLUSIONS: We found sub-optimal fidelity to the administration of the screening tool by CCW in home environments to children and adolescents enrolled in an OVC program. Improvements to questions and their delivery and ongoing mentorship could strengthen tool performance and HIV case finding using a targeted testing approach. Overall, home-based HIV risk screening and testing were acceptable to beneficiaries and CCW, could improve testing uptake, and serve as a platform to promote healthy behaviors for those with limited health system interactions.
Authors: Waridibo E Allison; Mobumo Kiromat; John Vince; Handan Wand; Philip Cunningham; Stephen M Graham; John Kaldor Journal: Arch Dis Child Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 3.791
Authors: Nora E Rosenberg; Daniel Westreich; Till Bärnighausen; William C Miller; Frieda Behets; Suzanne Maman; Marie-Louise Newell; Audrey Pettifor Journal: AIDS Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Saeed Ahmed; Maria H Kim; Nandita Sugandhi; B Ryan Phelps; Rachael Sabelli; Mamadou O Diallo; Paul Young; Dana Duncan; Scott E Kellerman Journal: AIDS Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Joseph A Catania; Cassidy Huun; M Margaret Dolcini; Angelmary Joel Urban; Nick Fleury; Clinton Ndyetabula; Ryan Singh; Amy W Young; Donaldson F Conserve; James Lace; Joyce Samweli Msigwa Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2021-02-11 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Rashida A Ferrand; Helen A Weiss; Kusum Nathoo; Chiratidzo E Ndhlovu; Stanley Mungofa; Shungu Munyati; Tsitsi Bandason; Diana M Gibb; Elizabeth L Corbett Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: Ann E Kurth; Michelle A Lally; Augustine T Choko; Irene W Inwani; J Dennis Fortenberry Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Tsitsi Bandason; Grace McHugh; Ethel Dauya; Stanley Mungofa; Shungu M Munyati; Helen A Weiss; Hilda Mujuru; Katharina Kranzer; Rashida A Ferrand Journal: AIDS Date: 2016-03-13 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Tijana Stanic; Nicole McCann; Martina Penazzato; Clare Flanagan; Shaffiq Essajee; Kenneth A Freedberg; Meg Doherty; Nande Putta; Landon Myer; George K Siberry; Intira Jeannie Collins; Lara Vojnov; Elaine Abrams; Djøra I Soeteman; Andrea L Ciaranello Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2021-12-05 Impact factor: 3.835