Implementing HIV teams to improve HIV indicator condition-guided testing in general practitioner centers in the Netherlands.

IF 2 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Carlijn C E Jordans, Lotte Niemantsverdriet-Rokx, Jan L Struik, Eva C van der Waal, Paul V J M van der Voorn, Nienke Bakker, Annelies Verbon, Patrick J E Bindels, Casper Rokx
{"title":"Implementing HIV teams to improve HIV indicator condition-guided testing in general practitioner centers in the Netherlands.","authors":"Carlijn C E Jordans, Lotte Niemantsverdriet-Rokx, Jan L Struik, Eva C van der Waal, Paul V J M van der Voorn, Nienke Bakker, Annelies Verbon, Patrick J E Bindels, Casper Rokx","doi":"10.1186/s12875-024-02666-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>HIV indicator condition-guided testing is recommended by guidelines to identify undiagnosed HIV infections. However, general practitioners (GPs) frequently see patients for indicator conditions without testing them for HIV. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether implementing HIV teams, using trained GP ambassadors, promoted local HIV indicator condition-guided testing practices in urban GP centers in the Netherlands.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a prospective implementation study between May 2021 and March 2023. Patients ≥ 18 years newly diagnosed with HIV indicator conditions in three GP centers were included. The intervention consisted of HIV expert led education for GPs with a stepwise implementation of point-of-care testing (phase 1), followed by adding peer-to-peer case feedback by trained GP ambassadors (phase 2). Questionnaires were used to assess the experiences and beliefs of HIV indicator condition-driven testing in patients and GPs. The primary outcome was the overall HIV testing rate in patients diagnosed with indicator conditions compared to pre-implementation. Secondary outcomes were HIV testing rate per phase and per indicator condition, HIV positivity rate, and patients' and GPs' experiences with this testing strategy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 132,338 patient visits, 846 (0.6%, 95%CI 0.6-0.7%) HIV indicator conditions were diagnosed, including 485 sexually transmitted infections (57.3%). Overall, 215 (25.4%) indicator conditions were tested for HIV after the implementation of HIV teams. The testing rate was comparable between the two phases (25.2% versus 25.9%, p = 0.83). The testing rates pre- and post-implementation were comparable (21.3% versus 25.4%, p = 0.33). The most frequently tested HIV indicator conditions were unexplained weight loss (n = 13, 41.9%), unexplained lymphadenopathy (n = 8, 38.1%), and sexually transmitted infections (n = 161, 33.2%). Three patients (1.4%, 95%CI 0.3-4.0%) tested positive for HIV. Test acceptance in patients was high as was the self-perceived knowledge of GPs on HIV indicator conditions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Implementing HIV teams did not enhance HIV indicator condition-guided testing in urban GP centers from a low HIV prevalence setting. The high patients acceptance rate and self-perceived knowledge among GPs regarding HIV indicator conditions did not manifest in high HIV testing rates. Patients accepted testing, but a gap was found between the self-perceived knowledge of GPs regarding HIV indicator conditions and testing, and the actual HIV testing rate.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05225493 (registration date: 17-01-2022).</p>","PeriodicalId":72428,"journal":{"name":"BMC primary care","volume":"25 1","pages":"440"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11681718/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC primary care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-024-02666-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: HIV indicator condition-guided testing is recommended by guidelines to identify undiagnosed HIV infections. However, general practitioners (GPs) frequently see patients for indicator conditions without testing them for HIV. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether implementing HIV teams, using trained GP ambassadors, promoted local HIV indicator condition-guided testing practices in urban GP centers in the Netherlands.

Methods: We conducted a prospective implementation study between May 2021 and March 2023. Patients ≥ 18 years newly diagnosed with HIV indicator conditions in three GP centers were included. The intervention consisted of HIV expert led education for GPs with a stepwise implementation of point-of-care testing (phase 1), followed by adding peer-to-peer case feedback by trained GP ambassadors (phase 2). Questionnaires were used to assess the experiences and beliefs of HIV indicator condition-driven testing in patients and GPs. The primary outcome was the overall HIV testing rate in patients diagnosed with indicator conditions compared to pre-implementation. Secondary outcomes were HIV testing rate per phase and per indicator condition, HIV positivity rate, and patients' and GPs' experiences with this testing strategy.

Results: In 132,338 patient visits, 846 (0.6%, 95%CI 0.6-0.7%) HIV indicator conditions were diagnosed, including 485 sexually transmitted infections (57.3%). Overall, 215 (25.4%) indicator conditions were tested for HIV after the implementation of HIV teams. The testing rate was comparable between the two phases (25.2% versus 25.9%, p = 0.83). The testing rates pre- and post-implementation were comparable (21.3% versus 25.4%, p = 0.33). The most frequently tested HIV indicator conditions were unexplained weight loss (n = 13, 41.9%), unexplained lymphadenopathy (n = 8, 38.1%), and sexually transmitted infections (n = 161, 33.2%). Three patients (1.4%, 95%CI 0.3-4.0%) tested positive for HIV. Test acceptance in patients was high as was the self-perceived knowledge of GPs on HIV indicator conditions.

Conclusions: Implementing HIV teams did not enhance HIV indicator condition-guided testing in urban GP centers from a low HIV prevalence setting. The high patients acceptance rate and self-perceived knowledge among GPs regarding HIV indicator conditions did not manifest in high HIV testing rates. Patients accepted testing, but a gap was found between the self-perceived knowledge of GPs regarding HIV indicator conditions and testing, and the actual HIV testing rate.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05225493 (registration date: 17-01-2022).

在荷兰的全科医生中心实施艾滋病毒小组,以改进艾滋病毒指标条件指导检测。
背景:HIV指标条件引导检测被指南推荐用于识别未确诊的HIV感染。然而,全科医生(全科医生)经常在没有检测艾滋病毒的情况下为患者提供指示条件。本研究的目的是评估是否实施艾滋病毒小组,使用训练有素的全科医生大使,促进当地艾滋病毒指标条件指导检测实践在荷兰的城市全科医生中心。方法:我们在2021年5月至2023年3月期间进行了一项前瞻性实施研究。≥18岁的患者在三个全科医生中心新诊断为HIV指标条件。干预措施包括艾滋病毒专家主导的全科医生教育,逐步实施护理点检测(第一阶段),随后由训练有素的全科医生大使增加对等病例反馈(第二阶段)。使用问卷来评估患者和全科医生对艾滋病毒指标条件驱动检测的经验和信念。主要结果是与实施前相比,诊断为指标条件的患者的总体艾滋病毒检测率。次要结果是每个阶段和每个指标条件下的HIV检测率,HIV阳性率以及患者和全科医生使用该检测策略的经验。结果:在132,338例患者就诊中,诊断出846例(0.6%,95%CI 0.6-0.7%) HIV指标条件,其中性传播感染485例(57.3%)。总体而言,在实施艾滋病毒小组后,对215个(25.4%)指标条件进行了艾滋病毒检测。两阶段的检测率具有可比性(25.2% vs 25.9%, p = 0.83)。实施前和实施后的检测率具有可比性(21.3%对25.4%,p = 0.33)。最常见的HIV检测指标是不明原因的体重减轻(n = 13, 41.9%)、不明原因的淋巴结病(n = 8, 38.1%)和性传播感染(n = 161, 33.2%)。3例患者(1.4%,95%CI 0.3-4.0%) HIV检测呈阳性。患者的测试接受度很高,全科医生对艾滋病毒指标条件的自我认知知识也很高。结论:在艾滋病毒感染率较低的城市全科医生中心,实施艾滋病毒小组并没有增强艾滋病毒指标条件指导检测。患者的高接受率和全科医生对HIV指标状况的自我认知并不表现在高HIV检测率上。患者接受检测,但发现全科医生对HIV指标条件和检测的自我认知知识与实际HIV检测率之间存在差距。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05225493(注册日期:17-01-2022)。
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
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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