Clinician Barriers and Facilitators to Routine HIV Testing: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

IF 2.2 Q3 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Ann Dalton Bagchi, Tracy Davis
{"title":"Clinician Barriers and Facilitators to Routine HIV Testing: A Systematic Review of the Literature.","authors":"Ann Dalton Bagchi,&nbsp;Tracy Davis","doi":"10.1177/2325958220936014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Routine HIV screening rates are suboptimal.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This systematic review identified barriers to/facilitators of routine HIV testing, categorized them using the socioecological model (SEM), and provided recommendations for interventions to increase screening.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Included articles were indexed in PubMed, EBSCO CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library between 2006 and October 2018.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Included studies were published in English or Spanish and directly assessed providers' barriers/facilitators to routine screening.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>We used a standardized Excel template to extract barriers/facilitators and identify levels in the SEM.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>Intrapersonal factors predominated as barriers, while facilitators were directed at the institutional level.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Policy barriers are not universal across countries. Meta-analysis was not possible. We could not quantify frequency of any given barrier/facilitator.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Increasing reimbursement and adding screening as a quality measure may incentivize HIV testing; however, many interventions would require little resource investment.</p>","PeriodicalId":17328,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care","volume":"19 ","pages":"2325958220936014"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2325958220936014","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2325958220936014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

Background: Routine HIV screening rates are suboptimal.

Objectives: This systematic review identified barriers to/facilitators of routine HIV testing, categorized them using the socioecological model (SEM), and provided recommendations for interventions to increase screening.

Data sources: Included articles were indexed in PubMed, EBSCO CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library between 2006 and October 2018.

Eligibility criteria: Included studies were published in English or Spanish and directly assessed providers' barriers/facilitators to routine screening.

Data extraction: We used a standardized Excel template to extract barriers/facilitators and identify levels in the SEM.

Data synthesis: Intrapersonal factors predominated as barriers, while facilitators were directed at the institutional level.

Limitations: Policy barriers are not universal across countries. Meta-analysis was not possible. We could not quantify frequency of any given barrier/facilitator.

Conclusions: Increasing reimbursement and adding screening as a quality measure may incentivize HIV testing; however, many interventions would require little resource investment.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

临床医生的障碍和促进常规艾滋病毒检测:文献的系统回顾。
背景:常规HIV筛查率不理想。目的:本系统综述确定了常规HIV检测的障碍/促进因素,使用社会生态学模型(SEM)对其进行分类,并提供了增加筛查的干预措施建议。数据来源:收录的文章在PubMed、EBSCO CINAHL、Scopus、Web of Science和Cochrane Library中检索,检索时间为2006年至2018年10月。入选标准:纳入的研究以英语或西班牙语发表,并直接评估提供者对常规筛查的障碍/促进因素。数据提取:我们使用标准化的Excel模板提取障碍/促进因素,并确定SEM中的水平。数据综合:个人因素作为障碍占主导地位,而促进因素则针对机构一级。限制:政策障碍在各国并不普遍。meta分析是不可能的。我们无法量化任何给定障碍/促进者的频率。结论:增加报销和增加筛查作为一种质量措施可以激励HIV检测;然而,许多干预措施只需要很少的资源投资。
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
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
43
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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