scholarly journals Public attitudes towards opt-out testing for HIV in primary care: a qualitative study

2014 ◽  
Vol 64 (619) ◽  
pp. e60-e66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Glew ◽  
Alex Pollard ◽  
Leila Hughes ◽  
Carrie Llewellyn
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Radovic ◽  
Nathan Anderson ◽  
Megan Hamm ◽  
Brandie George-Milford ◽  
Carrie Fascetti ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Screening Wizard (SW) is a technology-based decision support tool aimed at guiding primary care providers (PCPs) to respond to depression and suicidality screens in adolescents. Separate screens assess adolescents’ and parents’ reports on mental health symptoms, treatment preferences, and potential treatment barriers. A detailed summary is provided to PCPs, also identifying adolescent-parent discrepancies. The goal of SW is to enhance decision making to increase utilization of evidence-based treatments. OBJECTIVE We describe a multi-stakeholder qualitative study with adolescents, parents, and providers to understand potential barriers to implementation of SW. METHODS We interviewed 11 parents and 11 adolescents, and conducted 2 focus groups with 17 healthcare providers (PCPs, nurses, therapists, staff) across 2 pediatric practices. Participants described previous experiences with screening for depression and were shown a mock-up of SW and asked for feedback. Interviews and focus groups were transcribed verbatim, and codebooks inductively developed based on content. Transcripts were double-coded, and disagreements adjudicated to full agreement. Completed coding was used to produce thematic analyses of interviews and focus groups. RESULTS We identified five main themes across the interviews and focus groups: (1) parents, adolescents, and pediatric PCPs agree that depression screening should occur in pediatric primary care; (2) there is concern that accurate self-disclosure does not always occur during depression screening; (3) Screening Wizard is viewed as a tool that could facilitate depression screening, and which might encourage more honesty in screening responses; (4) parents, adolescents and providers do not want Screening Wizard to replace mental health discussions with providers; and (5) providers want to maintain autonomy in treatment decisions. CONCLUSIONS We identified that providers, parents, and adolescents all have concerns with current screening practices, mainly regarding inaccurate self-disclosure. They recognized value in SW as a computerized tool that may elicit more honest responses and identify adolescent-parent discrepancies. Surprisingly, providers did not want the SW report to include treatment recommendations, and all groups did not want the SW report to replace conversations with the PCP about depression. While SW was originally developed as a treatment decision algorithm, this qualitative study has led us to remove this component, and instead focus on aspects identified as most useful by all groups. We hope that this initial qualitative work will improve future implementation of SW.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S512-S512
Author(s):  
Jodian Pinkney ◽  
Divya Ahuja ◽  
Caroline Derrick ◽  
Martin Durkin

Abstract Background South Carolina (SC) remains one of the most heavily affected states for both HIV and HCV infections. Males account for the majority of cases. Implementation of universal opt-out testing has improved screening rates but not much has been published describing the characteristics of those who opt out of testing. This becomes important as 10-50% of patients have opted out in previous studies. Methods Between February and August 2019, we conducted a quality improvement (QI) project which implemented opt- out HIV-HCV testing at a single primary care resident clinic in SC with the primary aim of increasing screening rates for HIV-HCV by 50%. Secondary aims included describing the demographic characteristics of the opt-out population. Persons were considered eligible for testing if they were between the ages of 18-65 years for HIV and 18-74 years for HCV. This was prior to the USPSTF 2020 guidelines which recommend HCV screening for adults aged 18-79 years. A retrospective chart review was used to obtain screening rates, opt status and demographic data. Logistic regression and the firth model were used to determine linkages between categorical variables. We present 3-month data. Results 1253 patients were seen between May 1, 2019- July 31, 2019 (See Table 1). 985 (78%) were eligible for HIV testing. 482 (49%) were tested for HIV as a result of our QI project and all tests were negative. 212 (22%) of eligible patients opted out of HIV testing. Males were 1.59 times more likely to opt out (p=0.008). (see Table 2,3) Regarding HCV, 1136 (90.7%) were deemed eligible for testing. 503 (44%) were tested for HCV as a result of our QI project. 12 (2.4%) were HCV antibody positive with viremia. 11 (90%) of antibody positive with viremia cases were in the 1945-1965 birth cohort (see Table 4). 244 (21%) opted out of HCV testing. Males and persons without a genitourinary chief complaint were more likely to opt out (p=0.02). Table 1: Demographic characteristics of the population seen at the internal medicine resident clinic between May- July 2019 Table 2: Relationship between demographic variables and the odds of being tested for HIV or HCV within the last 12 months. Logistic Model. Table 3: Relationship between demographic variables and the odds of opting out of testing for HIV or HCV. Firth Model. Conclusion Although implementation of routine HIV-HCV opt-out testing led to increased screening rates for both HIV and HCV, roughly 1 in 5 eligible patients chose to opt out of testing. Males were more likely to opt out despite accounting for the majority of newly diagnosed HCV cases. Future studies investigating drivers for opting-out in the male population could improve testing and assist with early diagnosis. Table 4: Characteristics of patients newly diagnosed with HCV positive with viremia. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures


BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. e033061
Author(s):  
Mark Lown ◽  
Christopher R Wilcox ◽  
Stephanie Hughes ◽  
Miriam Santer ◽  
George Lewith ◽  
...  

ObjectivesThere has been increased interest in screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) with commissioned pilot schemes, ongoing large clinical trials and the emergence of inexpensive consumer single-lead ECG devices that can be used to detect AF. This qualitative study aimed to explore patients’ views and understanding of AF and AF screening to determine acceptability and inform future recommendations.SettingA single primary care practice in Hampshire, UK.Participants15 participants (11 female) were interviewed from primary care who had taken part in an AF screening trial. A semistructured interview guide was used flexibly to enable the interviewer to explore any relevant topics raised by the participants. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive thematic analysis.ResultsParticipants generally had an incomplete understanding of AF and conflated it with other heart problems or with raised blood pressure. With regards to potential drawbacks from screening, some participants considered anxiety and the cost of implementation, but none acknowledged potential harms associated with screening such as side effects of anticoagulation treatment or the risk of further investigations. The screening was generally well accepted, and participants were generally in favour of engaging with prolonged screening.ConclusionsOur study highlights that there may be poor understanding (of both the nature of AF and potential negatives of screening) among patients who have been screened for AF. Further work is required to determine if resources including decision aids can address this important knowledge gap and improve clinical informed consent for AF screening.Trial registration numberISRCTN 17495003.


2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Morris ◽  
Lindsay Macdonald ◽  
Maria Stubbe ◽  
Anthony Dowell

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 529-536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abiola O. Keller ◽  
Carmen R. Valdez ◽  
Rebecca J. Schwei ◽  
Elizabeth A. Jacobs

2016 ◽  
Vol 99 (5) ◽  
pp. 724-732 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachael H. Summers ◽  
Michael Moore ◽  
Stuart Ekberg ◽  
Carolyn A. Chew-Graham ◽  
Paul Little ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document