4.6 Article

Missed Opportunities for HIV Screening Among a Cohort of Adolescents With Recently Diagnosed HIV Infection in a Large Pediatric Hospital Care Network

Journal

JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT HEALTH
Volume 63, Issue 6, Pages 799-802

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.07.010

Keywords

HIV testing; Missed opportunities; Primary care; HIV

Funding

  1. National Institute of Mental Health [F32 MH111341, K23 MH102128]
  2. Penn Center for AIDS Research (CFAR), an NIH [P30 AI 045008]
  3. Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under Leadership Education in Adolescent Health (LEAH) [T71MC30798]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Routine human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening reduces HIV progression and transmission. Our aims were to determine prevalence and factors associated with prior HIV screening among a cohort of youth living with HIV. Methods: Retrospective chart review of youth living with HIV aged 14-26 at an HIV clinic comparing characteristics between those with and without HIV screening within the year prior to diagnosis Results: Subjects (n = 301) were male (85%), African-American (87%), and men who have sex with men (84%). Subjects seen 1 year prior to diagnosis (n = 58) contributed 179 visits for missed opportunities with 59% having a documented sexual history in the electronic health record and 48% tested for HIV. Subjects with symptoms suggesting acute HIV infection (51%) were more likely to be tested (p = .04). In the adjusted model, documentation of sexual history and demographic factors was not associated with prior testing. Conclusion: We identified high rates of missed opportunities for HIV testing and sexual history documentation in the year prior to diagnosis, underscoring the need for routine HIV screening in adolescents. (C) 2018 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available