Rapid HIV test in family practice

BACKGROUND

The 2010-2014 HIV/AIDS French program recommends using HIV rapid diagnostic tests in family practice. Our aim was to assess the acceptability and feasibility of the RDT in family practice in France.

METHODS

The first part of this study was to determine the opinions of family practitioners (FPs) concerning the news guidelines for screening and the possible use of rapid HIV tests in their practice. The second part was a feasibility study of the actual use of rapid HIV tests given to FPs during six months. The third part was a qualitative analysis of experience feedback to determine the impediments to using rapid HIV tests.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven percent of the 352 FPs interviewed were favorable to rapid HIV tests use. The three main impediments were: misinterpretation of test result, complexity of quality control, and lack of training: 23 of the 112 FPs having volunteered to evaluate the rapid HIV tests followed the required training session. Sixty-nine tests were handed out, and three rapid HIV tests were used; the qualitative study involved 12 FPs. The participants all agreed on the difficult use of rapid HIV tests in daily practice. The main reasons were: too few opportunities or requests for use, complex handling, difficulties in proposing the test, fear of having to announce seropositivity, significantly longer consultation.

CONCLUSION

Although FPs are generally favorable to rapid HIV tests use in daily practice, the feasibility and contribution of rapid HIV tests are limited in family practice.

Efficacy of communication skills training on colorectal cancer screening by GPs: a cluster randomised controlled trial

Colorectal cancer (CRC) mass screening has been implemented in France since 2008. Participation rates remain too low. The objective of this study was to test if the implementation of a training course focused on communication skills among general practitioners (GP) would increase the delivery of gaiac faecal occult blood test and CRC screening participation among the target population of each participating GP. A cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted with GP's practice as a cluster unit. GPs from practices in the control group were asked to continue their usual care. GPs of the intervention group received a 4-h educational training, built with previous qualitative data on CRC screening focusing on doctor-patient communication with a follow-up of 7 months for both groups. The primary outcome measure was the patients' participation rate in the target population for each GP. Seventeen GPs (16 practices) in intervention group and 28 GPs (19 practices) in control group participated. The patients' participation rate in the intervention group were 36.7% vs. 24.5% in the control group (P = 0.03). Doctor-patient communication should be developed and appear to be one of the possible targets of improvement patients adherence and participation rate in the target population for CRC mass screening.