A cross sectional survey of the barriers for implementing rapid HIV testing among French general practitioners

Feasibility and acceptability of a systematic offer of HIV rapid testing to Family Planning Centers visitors by non-physician professionals in France

BACKGROUND

The Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) epidemic remains active among women in Europe, with significant missed opportunities for HIV testing. Although HIV testing falls within the scope of Family Planning Centers (FPCs), it is often not offered. This pilot study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of systematically offering HIV rapid testing by non-physician professionals, independent of medical appointments, to visitors and accompanying persons in FCPs.

METHODS

In September 2020, three FPCs in the Paris region were selected for a 6-month pilot based on high local HIV diagnosis rates among women and the absence of an existing HIV rapid testing offer. A dedicated midwife coordinated a certified training course for non-physician professionals, including group discussions on obstacles and facilitators for offering HIV rapid testing, education on HIV and the use of HIV rapid tests, and the development of procedures, including a standardized HIV questionnaire, to systematically offer HIV rapid testing. We measured participation rates in the study and acceptability of the HIV rapid testing offer. We analyzed visitor characteristics, HIV risk factors and knowledge about HIV.

RESULTS

All non-physician professionals across the three FPCs were trained. HIV rapid testing was systematically offered to 261 incoming visitors and accompanying persons from September 2020 to March 2021: 93% completed the questionnaire, and 91% accepted the HIV rapid testing offer; 63% reported prior HIV risk behaviors. Visitors born in North Africa had the least knowledge about HIV. Twenty-two visitors declined the testing offer, citing recent HIV testing, no perceived lack of risk, feeling unprepared, or fear of the outcome.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrate the feasibility and strong acceptability of systematically offering HIV rapid testing by non-physician professionals in large urban FPCs. Extending this approach to include sexually transmitted infections (STIs) screening could be beneficial.

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.

HIV testing within general practices in Europe: a mixed-methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

Late diagnosis of HIV infection remains a key challenge in Europe. It is acknowledged that general practitioners (GPs) may contribute greatly to early case finding, yet there is evidence that many diagnostic opportunities are being missed. To further promote HIV testing in primary care and to increase the utility of available research, the existing evidence has been synthesised in a systematic review adhering to the PRISMA guidelines.

METHODS

The databases PubMed, Scopus and Embase were searched for the period 2006-2017. Two authors judged independently on the eligibility of studies. Through a mixed-methods systematic review of 29 studies, we provide a description of HIV testing in general practices in Europe, including barriers and facilitators.

RESULTS

The findings of the study show that although various approaches to target patients are used by GPs, most tests are still carried out based on the patient's request. Several barriers obstruct HIV testing in general practice. Included are a lack of communication skills on sexual health, lack of knowledge about HIV testing recommendations and epidemic specificities, difficulties with using the complete list of clinical HIV indicator diseases and lack of experience in delivering and communicating test results. The findings also suggest that the provision of specific training, practical tools and promotion programmes has an impact on the testing performance of GPs.

CONCLUSIONS

GPs could have an increased role in provider-initiated HIV-testing for early case finding. To achieve this objective, solutions to the reported barriers should be identified and testing criteria adapted to primary healthcare defined. Providing guidance and training to better identify priority groups for HIV testing, as well as information on the HIV epidemic's characteristics, will be fundamental to increasing awareness and testing by GPs.

Qualitative impact assessment of an educational workshop on primary care practitioner attitudes to NICE HIV testing guidelines

Background

In 2013, Public Health England piloted the ‘3Cs (chlamydia, contraception, condoms) and HIV (human immunodeficiency virus)’ educational intervention in 460 GP surgeries. The educational HIV workshop aimed to improve the ability and confidence of staff to offer HIV testing in line with national guidelines.

Aim

To qualitatively assess the impact of an educational workshop on GP staff’s attitudes to NICE HIV testing guidelines.

Design & setting

Qualitative interviews with GP staff across England before and after an educational HIV workshop.

Method

Thirty-two GP staff (15 before and 17 after educational HIV workshop) participated in interviews exploring their views and current practice of HIV testing. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed and examined, using the components of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) and normalisation process theory (NPT) as a framework.

Results

GPs reported that the educational HIV workshop resulted in increased knowledge of, and confidence to offer, HIV tests based on indicator conditions. However, overall participants felt they needed additional HIV training around clinical care pathways for offering tests, giving positive HIV results, and current treatments and outcomes. Participants did not see a place for point-of-care testing in general practice.

Conclusion

Implementation of national HIV guidelines will require multiple educational sessions, especially to implement testing guidelines for indicator conditions in areas of low HIV prevalence. Additional role-play or discussions around scripts suggesting how to offer an HIV test may improve participants’ confidence and facilitate increased testing. Healthcare assistants (HCAs) may need specific training to ensure that they are skilled in offering HIV testing within new patient checks.

Acceptability and feasibility of HIV testing in general medicine by ELISA or rapid test from finger-stick whole blood

OBJECTIVES

Guidelines recommend routine universal HIV testing in adults to reduce the pool of infected patients unaware of their status, without specific recommendations concerning the method. We compared acceptability and feasibility of HIV testing by ELISA tests or rapid tests from finger-stick whole blood.

METHODS

Prospective randomized multi-center study comparing acceptability and feasibility of routine universal HIV testing by ELISA tests, with a charge, subsequently reimbursed by Social Security for affiliated patients, or rapid tests from finger-stick whole blood, without any charge from the patients or the general practitioner for the study. A single investigator performed all interventions. After consent, all adults (18-70 years old) consulting their general practitioner in Paris, France, unaware of their status, were enrolled. Testing was performed immediately for the patients in the rapid test arm; a prescription was given for testing in a lab for the patients in the ELISA arm. The primary endpoint was acceptability of each method. The secondary endpoint was feasibility of each method, assessed one month after the consultation.

RESULTS

Two hundred and seventy patients were enrolled: 133 patients in the ELISA arm, 137 in the rapid test arm. Acceptability of the rapid test (92%) was higher than that of the ELISA (63.9%), P<0.0001. Feasibility of the rapid test (100%) was higher than that of the ELISA (50.5%), P<0.0001. A center effect was shown concerning feasibility of ELISA but not concerning feasibility of rapid tests.

CONCLUSION

Rapid testing from finger-stick whole blood is more acceptable and feasible than ELISA for routine universal HIV testing. A larger use of rapid tests, ideally free of charge, by general practitioners could reduce the pool of infected patients unaware of their status.