Determining the strength of evidence for an association between sexual indicators and risk of acquiring HIV and sexulaly transmitted infections: Providing evidence for blood donation policy change.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEMATOLOGY
Joe Flannagan, Katy L Davison, Claire Reynolds, Susan R Brailsford
{"title":"Determining the strength of evidence for an association between sexual indicators and risk of acquiring HIV and sexulaly transmitted infections: Providing evidence for blood donation policy change.","authors":"Joe Flannagan, Katy L Davison, Claire Reynolds, Susan R Brailsford","doi":"10.1111/tme.13062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 2019 the For The Assessment Of Individualised Risk (FAIR) project began a review of UK blood donor selection policy to determine if a more individualised approach to donor selection could be safely implemented. An evidence base was required to inform selection policy to move from a population to a more individual based policy, specifically what sexual behaviours/indicators should be considered as screening questions to maintain the safety of the blood supply. Eight sexual behaviours/indicators were reviewed: history of bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs), chemsex, number of recent partners, condom use, type of sex, sexual health service (SHS) attendance, new sexual partner and exclusivity. We conducted searches in multiple databases to identify literature looking at the association between these behaviours/indicators and HIV/STI acquisition risk. A scoring system to determine strength of evidence was devised and applied to papers that passed screening. Key studies were identified which achieved the maximum score and more in-depth reviews were conducted for these. We identified 58 studies, including 17 key studies. Strong evidence was found linking a previous bacterial STI, chemsex and increasing numbers of sexual partners to acquisition risk. Condom use, type of sex and new partners were found to have some strength of evidence for this link. SHS attendance and exclusivity had minimal evidence. We recommended that the behaviours/indicators viewed as having strong or some strength of evidence should be considered as screening questions in a more individualised approach to donor selection criteria.</p>","PeriodicalId":23306,"journal":{"name":"Transfusion Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transfusion Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tme.13062","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 2019 the For The Assessment Of Individualised Risk (FAIR) project began a review of UK blood donor selection policy to determine if a more individualised approach to donor selection could be safely implemented. An evidence base was required to inform selection policy to move from a population to a more individual based policy, specifically what sexual behaviours/indicators should be considered as screening questions to maintain the safety of the blood supply. Eight sexual behaviours/indicators were reviewed: history of bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs), chemsex, number of recent partners, condom use, type of sex, sexual health service (SHS) attendance, new sexual partner and exclusivity. We conducted searches in multiple databases to identify literature looking at the association between these behaviours/indicators and HIV/STI acquisition risk. A scoring system to determine strength of evidence was devised and applied to papers that passed screening. Key studies were identified which achieved the maximum score and more in-depth reviews were conducted for these. We identified 58 studies, including 17 key studies. Strong evidence was found linking a previous bacterial STI, chemsex and increasing numbers of sexual partners to acquisition risk. Condom use, type of sex and new partners were found to have some strength of evidence for this link. SHS attendance and exclusivity had minimal evidence. We recommended that the behaviours/indicators viewed as having strong or some strength of evidence should be considered as screening questions in a more individualised approach to donor selection criteria.

确定性指标与感染艾滋病毒和性传播疾病风险之间关联的证据强度:为改变献血政策提供证据。
2019 年,"个性化风险评估"(FAIR)项目开始对英国献血者筛选政策进行审查,以确定是否可以安全地实施更加个性化的献血者筛选方法。我们需要一个证据基础来为选择政策提供信息,以便从基于人群的政策转变为更加基于个体的政策,特别是哪些性行为/指标应被视为筛查问题,以维护血液供应的安全。我们对八种性行为/指标进行了审查:细菌性性传播感染(STIs)病史、化学性性行为、最近的性伴侣数量、安全套使用情况、性行为类型、性健康服务(SHS)就诊情况、新的性伴侣和排他性。我们在多个数据库中进行了检索,以确定研究这些行为/指标与 HIV/STI 感染风险之间关系的文献。我们设计了一套确定证据强度的评分系统,并将其应用于通过筛选的论文。我们确定了获得最高分的关键研究,并对这些研究进行了更深入的综述。我们确定了 58 项研究,其中包括 17 项关键研究。我们发现了强有力的证据,证明曾感染过细菌性 STI、化学性性行为和性伴侣数量的增加与感染风险有关。我们发现,使用安全套、性行为类型和新性伴侣在一定程度上证明了这种联系。参加社会性卫生服务和排他性的证据则微乎其微。我们建议,被认为具有较强或一定证据强度的行为/指标应被视为筛选问题,以更加个性化的方式作为捐献者选择标准。
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
Transfusion Medicine
Transfusion Medicine 医学-血液学
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
96
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Transfusion Medicine publishes articles on transfusion medicine in its widest context, including blood transfusion practice (blood procurement, pharmaceutical, clinical, scientific, computing and documentary aspects), immunohaematology, immunogenetics, histocompatibility, medico-legal applications, and related molecular biology and biotechnology. In addition to original articles, which may include brief communications and case reports, the journal contains a regular educational section (based on invited reviews and state-of-the-art reports), technical section (including quality assurance and current practice guidelines), leading articles, letters to the editor, occasional historical articles and signed book reviews. Some lectures from Society meetings that are likely to be of general interest to readers of the Journal may be published at the discretion of the Editor and subject to the availability of space in the Journal.
×
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