Nurse-delivered universal point-of-care testing for HIV in an open-access returning traveller clinic

Systematic Review: Strategies for Improving HIV Testing and Detection Rates in European Hospitals

Undiagnosed HIV infection is a prominent clinical issue throughout Europe that requires the continuous attention of all healthcare professionals and policymakers to prevent missed testing opportunities and late diagnosis. This systematic review aimed to evaluate interventions to increase HIV testing rates and case detection in European hospitals. Out of 4598 articles identified, 29 studies fulfilled the selection criteria. Most of the studies were conducted in single Western European capital cities, and only one study was from Eastern Europe. The main interventions investigated were test-all and indicator-condition-based testing strategies. Overall, the prevalence of undiagnosed HIV was well above 0.1%. The studied interventions increased the HIV testing rate and the case detection rate. The highest prevalence of undiagnosed HIV was found with the indicator-condition-driven testing strategy, whereas the test-all strategy had the most profound impact on the proportion of late diagnoses. Nevertheless, the HIV testing rates and case-finding varied considerably across studies. In conclusion, effective strategies to promote HIV testing in European hospitals are available, but relevant knowledge gaps regarding generalizability and sustainability remain. These gaps require the promotion of adherence to HIV testing guidelines, as well as additional larger studies representing all European regions.

HIV testing strategies employed in health care settings in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA): evidence from a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Despite the availability of HIV testing guidelines to facilitate prompt diagnosis, late HIV diagnosis remains high across Europe. The study synthesizes recent evidence on HIV testing strategies adopted in health care settings in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA).

METHODS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed and systematic searches were run in five databases (2010-2017) to identify studies describing HIV testing interventions in health care settings in the EU/EEA. The grey literature was searched for unpublished studies (2014-2017). Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction and critical appraisal.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty intervention and/or feasibility studies on HIV testing in health care settings were identified. Interventions included testing provision (n = 94), campaigns (n = 14) and education and training for staff and patients (n = 20). HIV test coverage achieved through testing provision varied: 2.9-94% in primary care compared to 3.9-66% in emergency departments. HIV test positivity was lower in emergency departments (0-1.3%) and antenatal services (0-0.05%) than in other hospital departments (e.g. inpatients: 0-5.3%). Indicator condition testing programmes increased HIV test coverage from 3.9-72% before to 12-85% after their implementation, with most studies reporting a 10-20% increase. There were 51 feasibility and/or acceptability studies that demonstrated that HIV testing interventions were generally acceptable to patients and providers in health care settings (e.g. general practitioner testing acceptable: 77-93%).

CONCLUSIONS

This review has identified several strategies that could be adopted to achieve high HIV testing coverage across a variety of health care settings and populations in the EU/EEA. Very few studies compared the intervention under investigation to a baseline, but, where this was assessed, data suggested increases in testing.

Measures and Metrics for Feasibility of Proof-of-Concept Studies With Human Immunodeficiency Virus Rapid Point-of-Care Technologies: The Evidence and the Framework

Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

Objective

Pilot (feasibility) studies form a vast majority of diagnostic studies with point-of-care technologies but often lack use of clear measures/metrics and a consistent framework for reporting and evaluation. To fill this gap, we systematically reviewed data to (a) catalog feasibility measures/metrics and (b) propose a framework.

Methods

For the period January 2000 to March 2014, 2 reviewers searched 4 databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus), retrieved 1441 citations, and abstracted data from 81 studies. We observed 2 major categories of measures, that is, implementation centered and patient centered, and 4 subcategories of measures, that is, feasibility, acceptability, preference, and patient experience. We defined and delineated metrics and measures for a feasibility framework. We documented impact measures for a comparison.

Findings

We observed heterogeneity in reporting of metrics as well as misclassification and misuse of metrics within measures. Although we observed poorly defined measures and metrics for feasibility, preference, and patient experience, in contrast, acceptability measure was the best defined. For example, within feasibility, metrics such as consent, completion, new infection, linkage rates, and turnaround times were misclassified and reported. Similarly, patient experience was variously reported as test convenience, comfort, pain, and/or satisfaction. In contrast, within impact measures, all the metrics were well documented, thus serving as a good baseline comparator. With our framework, we classified, delineated, and defined quantitative measures and metrics for feasibility.

Conclusions

Our framework, with its defined measures/metrics, could reduce misclassification and improve the overall quality of reporting for monitoring and evaluation of rapid point-of-care technology strategies and their context-driven optimization.