4.1 Article

Preference for physician vs. nurse-initiated opt-out screening on HIV test acceptance

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09540121.2013.772283

关键词

HIV/AIDS; opt-out screening; test acceptance; health care providers

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [P30AG021684, P30 AG021684] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDA NIH HHS [R01 DA030781] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIMHD NIH HHS [P20 MD000182, P20MD000182] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIMH NIH HHS [R34 MH089719] Funding Source: Medline
  5. PHS HHS [07768] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Provider-initiated opt-out HIV screening suggests that providers should routinely order HIV tests unless a patient declines. However, data on how providers will respond to this new screening model are scarce. Documented concerns from the providers' perspectives have included time constraints of a typical patient encounter, and discomfort with discussing sexual history and risk behavior with patients. To address these potential barriers, nurse-initiated screening has been proposed as an approach to increasing screening rates in general medical and urgent care settings. This study compares patient acceptability of provider-initiated opt-out HIV screening with nurse-initiated opt-out HIV screening among 220 patients between the ages of 18-64 from two publically funded safety-net outpatient clinics in Los Angeles County. Our study found that 77% of patients agreed to HIV testing using opt-out screening, and that HIV test acceptance was higher with the physician-initiated opt-out model compared with the nurse-initiated opt-out model (adjusted odds ratios = 2.92; 95% CI = 1.37-6.22). These findings indicate that adding opt-out screening to primary care providers responsibilities may be an acceptable and effective strategy for addressing the perennially low HIV testing rates, particularly among low income, traditionally underserved patient populations among whom the epidemic is expanding most rapidly.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据