4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Routine voluntary HIV testing in Durban, South Africa - The experience from an outpatient department

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e31814277c8

关键词

Africa; HIV; HIV testing; screening; urgent care

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [K23 AI068458-01, K24 AI062476, K23 AI068458, R01 AI058736, T32 AI007433, K23 AI001794, T32 AI07433, K23 AI01794, P30 AI060354] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the yield of a routine voluntary HIV testing program compared with traditional provider-referred voluntary counseling and testing (VCT) in a hospital-affiliated outpatient department (OPD) in Durban, South Africa. Design and Methods: In a prospective 14-week standard of care period, we compared OPD physician logs documenting patient referrals to the hospital VCT site with HIV test registers to measure patient completion of HIV test referral. The standard of care period was followed by a 12-week intervention during which all patients who registered at the OPD were given an educational intervention and offered a rapid HIV test at no charge as part of routine care. Results: During the standard of care period, OPD physicians referred 435 patients aged >= 18 years for HIV testing; 137 (31.5%) of the referred patients completed testing at the VCT site within 4 weeks. Among those tested, 102 (74.5%) were HIV infected. During the intervention period, 1414 adults accepted HIV testing and 1498 declined. Of those tested, 463 (32.7%, 95% confidence interval: 30.3 to 35.3) were HIV infected. Routine HIV testing in the OPD identified 39 new HIV cases per week compared with 8 new cases per week with standard of care testing based on physician referral to a VCT site (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Routine voluntary HIV testing in an OPD in South Africa leads to significantly higher rates of detection of HIV disease. This strategy should be implemented more widely in high HIV prevalence areas where treatment is available.

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

4.3
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