HIV Testing Uptake According to Opt-In, Opt-Out or Risk-Based Testing Approaches: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Qi Rui Soh, Leon Y J Oh, Eric P F Chow, Cheryl C Johnson, Muhammad S Jamil, Jason J Ong
{"title":"HIV Testing Uptake According to Opt-In, Opt-Out or Risk-Based Testing Approaches: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Qi Rui Soh,&nbsp;Leon Y J Oh,&nbsp;Eric P F Chow,&nbsp;Cheryl C Johnson,&nbsp;Muhammad S Jamil,&nbsp;Jason J Ong","doi":"10.1007/s11904-022-00614-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Improving HIV testing uptake is essential to ending the HIV pandemic. HIV testing approaches can be opt-in, opt-out or risk-based. This systematic review examines and compares the uptake of HIV testing in opt-in, opt-out and risk-based testing approaches.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>There remain missed opportunities for HIV testing in a variety of settings using different approaches: opt-in (a person actively accepts to be tested for HIV), opt-out (a person is informed that HIV testing is routine/standard of care, and they actively decline if they do not wish to be tested for HIV) or risk-based (using risk-based screening tools to focus testing on certain individuals or sub-populations at greater risk of HIV). It is not clear how the approach could impact HIV test uptake when adjusted for other factors (e.g. rapid testing, country-income level, test setting and population tested). We searched four databases for studies reporting on HIV test uptake. In total, 18,238 records were screened, and 150 studies were included in the review. Most studies described an opt-in approach (87 estimates), followed by opt-out (76) and risk-based (19). Opt-out testing was associated with 64.3% test uptake (I<sup>2</sup> = 99.9%), opt-in testing with 59.8% (I<sup>2</sup> = 99.9%) and risk-based testing with 54.4% (I<sup>2</sup> = 99.9%). When adjusted for settings that offered rapid testing, country income level, setting and population tested, opt-out testing had a significantly higher uptake (+ 12% (95% confidence intervals: 3-21), p = 0.007) than opt-in testing. We also found that emergency department patients and hospital outpatients had significantly lower HIV test uptake than other populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":10930,"journal":{"name":"Current HIV/AIDS Reports","volume":"19 5","pages":"375-383"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9508204/pdf/","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current HIV/AIDS Reports","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11904-022-00614-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Purpose of review: Improving HIV testing uptake is essential to ending the HIV pandemic. HIV testing approaches can be opt-in, opt-out or risk-based. This systematic review examines and compares the uptake of HIV testing in opt-in, opt-out and risk-based testing approaches.

Recent findings: There remain missed opportunities for HIV testing in a variety of settings using different approaches: opt-in (a person actively accepts to be tested for HIV), opt-out (a person is informed that HIV testing is routine/standard of care, and they actively decline if they do not wish to be tested for HIV) or risk-based (using risk-based screening tools to focus testing on certain individuals or sub-populations at greater risk of HIV). It is not clear how the approach could impact HIV test uptake when adjusted for other factors (e.g. rapid testing, country-income level, test setting and population tested). We searched four databases for studies reporting on HIV test uptake. In total, 18,238 records were screened, and 150 studies were included in the review. Most studies described an opt-in approach (87 estimates), followed by opt-out (76) and risk-based (19). Opt-out testing was associated with 64.3% test uptake (I2 = 99.9%), opt-in testing with 59.8% (I2 = 99.9%) and risk-based testing with 54.4% (I2 = 99.9%). When adjusted for settings that offered rapid testing, country income level, setting and population tested, opt-out testing had a significantly higher uptake (+ 12% (95% confidence intervals: 3-21), p = 0.007) than opt-in testing. We also found that emergency department patients and hospital outpatients had significantly lower HIV test uptake than other populations.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

根据选择加入、选择退出或基于风险的检测方法进行艾滋病毒检测:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
审查目的:改进艾滋病毒检测对终止艾滋病毒大流行至关重要。艾滋病毒检测方法可以选择加入、选择退出或基于风险。本系统综述检查并比较了选择加入、选择退出和基于风险的检测方法对艾滋病毒检测的接受情况。最近的发现:在使用不同方法的各种环境中,仍然错过了艾滋病毒检测的机会:选择加入(一个人积极接受艾滋病毒检测),选择退出(一个人被告知艾滋病毒检测是常规/标准护理,如果他们不希望接受艾滋病毒检测,他们会主动拒绝)或基于风险的(使用基于风险的筛查工具将检测重点放在艾滋病毒风险较大的某些个人或亚人群上)。目前尚不清楚,在根据其他因素(如快速检测、国家收入水平、检测环境和接受检测的人口)进行调整后,该方法如何影响艾滋病毒检测的使用。我们在四个数据库中检索了关于HIV检测接受情况的研究报告。总共筛选了18238份记录,其中150项研究被纳入综述。大多数研究描述了选择加入方法(87项估计),其次是选择退出方法(76项)和基于风险的方法(19项)。选择退出检测与64.3%的检测摄取相关(I2 = 99.9%),选择加入检测与59.8%相关(I2 = 99.9%),基于风险的检测与54.4%相关(I2 = 99.9%)。根据提供快速检测的环境、国家收入水平、环境和受测人群进行调整后,选择退出检测的使用率明显高于选择加入检测(+ 12%(95%置信区间:3-21),p = 0.007)。我们还发现急诊科患者和医院门诊患者的HIV检测率明显低于其他人群。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Current HIV/AIDS Reports
Current HIV/AIDS Reports INFECTIOUS DISEASES-
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
2.20%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: This journal intends to provide clear, insightful, balanced contributions by international experts that review the most important, recently published clinical findings related to the diagnosis, treatment, management, and prevention of HIV/AIDS. We accomplish this aim by appointing international authorities to serve as Section Editors in key subject areas, such as antiretroviral therapies, behavioral aspects of management, and metabolic complications and comorbidity. Section Editors, in turn, select topics for which leading experts contribute comprehensive review articles that emphasize new developments and recently published papers of major importance, highlighted by annotated reference lists. An international Editorial Board reviews the annual table of contents, suggests articles of special interest to their country/region, and ensures that topics are current and include emerging research. Commentaries from well-known figures in the field are also provided.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信