Cargando…
Feasibility and acceptability of point of care HIV testing in community outreach and GUM drop-in services in the North West of England: A programmatic evaluation
BACKGROUND: In Liverpool, injecting drug users (IDUs), men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM) and UK Africans experience a disproportionate burden of HIV, yet services do not reach out to these groups and late presentations continue. We set out to: increase testing uptake in targeted marginalized groups th...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2011
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3128022/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21627851 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-419 |
_version_ | 1782207405792165888 |
---|---|
author | MacPherson, Peter Chawla, Anu Jones, Kathy Coffey, Emer Spaine, Vida Harrison, Ian Jelliman, Pauline Phillips-Howard, Penelope Beynon, Caryl Taegtmeyer, Miriam |
author_facet | MacPherson, Peter Chawla, Anu Jones, Kathy Coffey, Emer Spaine, Vida Harrison, Ian Jelliman, Pauline Phillips-Howard, Penelope Beynon, Caryl Taegtmeyer, Miriam |
author_sort | MacPherson, Peter |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: In Liverpool, injecting drug users (IDUs), men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM) and UK Africans experience a disproportionate burden of HIV, yet services do not reach out to these groups and late presentations continue. We set out to: increase testing uptake in targeted marginalized groups through a community and genitourinary medicine (GUM)-based point of care testing (POCT) programme; and conduct a process evaluation to examine service provider inputs and document service user perceptions of the programme. METHODS: Mixed quantitative, qualitative and process evaluation methods were used. Service providers were trained to use fourth generation rapid antibody/antigen HIV tests. Existing outreach services incorporated POCT into routine practice. Clients completed a semi-structured questionnaire and focus group discussions (FGDs) were held with service providers. RESULTS: Between September 2009 and June 2010, 953 individuals underwent POCT (GUM: 556 [59%]; community-based sites: 397 [42%]). Participants in the community were more likely to be male (p = 0.028), older (p < 0.001), of UK African origin (p < 0.001) and IDUs (p < 0.001) than participants from the GUM clinic. Seventeen new HIV diagnoses were confirmed (prevalence = 1.8%), 16 of whom were in risk exposure categories (prevalence: 16/517, 3.1%). Questionnaires and FGDs showed that clients and service providers were supportive of POCT, highlighting benefits of reaching out to marginalised communities and incorporating HIV prevention messages. CONCLUSIONS: Community and GUM clinic-based POCT for HIV was feasible and acceptable to clients and service providers in a low prevalence setting. It successfully reached target groups, many of whom would not have otherwise tested. We recommend POCT be considered among strategies to increase the uptake of HIV testing among groups who are currently underserved. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3128022 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2011 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-31280222011-07-01 Feasibility and acceptability of point of care HIV testing in community outreach and GUM drop-in services in the North West of England: A programmatic evaluation MacPherson, Peter Chawla, Anu Jones, Kathy Coffey, Emer Spaine, Vida Harrison, Ian Jelliman, Pauline Phillips-Howard, Penelope Beynon, Caryl Taegtmeyer, Miriam BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: In Liverpool, injecting drug users (IDUs), men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM) and UK Africans experience a disproportionate burden of HIV, yet services do not reach out to these groups and late presentations continue. We set out to: increase testing uptake in targeted marginalized groups through a community and genitourinary medicine (GUM)-based point of care testing (POCT) programme; and conduct a process evaluation to examine service provider inputs and document service user perceptions of the programme. METHODS: Mixed quantitative, qualitative and process evaluation methods were used. Service providers were trained to use fourth generation rapid antibody/antigen HIV tests. Existing outreach services incorporated POCT into routine practice. Clients completed a semi-structured questionnaire and focus group discussions (FGDs) were held with service providers. RESULTS: Between September 2009 and June 2010, 953 individuals underwent POCT (GUM: 556 [59%]; community-based sites: 397 [42%]). Participants in the community were more likely to be male (p = 0.028), older (p < 0.001), of UK African origin (p < 0.001) and IDUs (p < 0.001) than participants from the GUM clinic. Seventeen new HIV diagnoses were confirmed (prevalence = 1.8%), 16 of whom were in risk exposure categories (prevalence: 16/517, 3.1%). Questionnaires and FGDs showed that clients and service providers were supportive of POCT, highlighting benefits of reaching out to marginalised communities and incorporating HIV prevention messages. CONCLUSIONS: Community and GUM clinic-based POCT for HIV was feasible and acceptable to clients and service providers in a low prevalence setting. It successfully reached target groups, many of whom would not have otherwise tested. We recommend POCT be considered among strategies to increase the uptake of HIV testing among groups who are currently underserved. BioMed Central 2011-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC3128022/ /pubmed/21627851 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-419 Text en Copyright ©2011 MacPherson et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article MacPherson, Peter Chawla, Anu Jones, Kathy Coffey, Emer Spaine, Vida Harrison, Ian Jelliman, Pauline Phillips-Howard, Penelope Beynon, Caryl Taegtmeyer, Miriam Feasibility and acceptability of point of care HIV testing in community outreach and GUM drop-in services in the North West of England: A programmatic evaluation |
title | Feasibility and acceptability of point of care HIV testing in community outreach and GUM drop-in services in the North West of England: A programmatic evaluation |
title_full | Feasibility and acceptability of point of care HIV testing in community outreach and GUM drop-in services in the North West of England: A programmatic evaluation |
title_fullStr | Feasibility and acceptability of point of care HIV testing in community outreach and GUM drop-in services in the North West of England: A programmatic evaluation |
title_full_unstemmed | Feasibility and acceptability of point of care HIV testing in community outreach and GUM drop-in services in the North West of England: A programmatic evaluation |
title_short | Feasibility and acceptability of point of care HIV testing in community outreach and GUM drop-in services in the North West of England: A programmatic evaluation |
title_sort | feasibility and acceptability of point of care hiv testing in community outreach and gum drop-in services in the north west of england: a programmatic evaluation |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3128022/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21627851 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-419 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT macphersonpeter feasibilityandacceptabilityofpointofcarehivtestingincommunityoutreachandgumdropinservicesinthenorthwestofenglandaprogrammaticevaluation AT chawlaanu feasibilityandacceptabilityofpointofcarehivtestingincommunityoutreachandgumdropinservicesinthenorthwestofenglandaprogrammaticevaluation AT joneskathy feasibilityandacceptabilityofpointofcarehivtestingincommunityoutreachandgumdropinservicesinthenorthwestofenglandaprogrammaticevaluation AT coffeyemer feasibilityandacceptabilityofpointofcarehivtestingincommunityoutreachandgumdropinservicesinthenorthwestofenglandaprogrammaticevaluation AT spainevida feasibilityandacceptabilityofpointofcarehivtestingincommunityoutreachandgumdropinservicesinthenorthwestofenglandaprogrammaticevaluation AT harrisonian feasibilityandacceptabilityofpointofcarehivtestingincommunityoutreachandgumdropinservicesinthenorthwestofenglandaprogrammaticevaluation AT jellimanpauline feasibilityandacceptabilityofpointofcarehivtestingincommunityoutreachandgumdropinservicesinthenorthwestofenglandaprogrammaticevaluation AT phillipshowardpenelope feasibilityandacceptabilityofpointofcarehivtestingincommunityoutreachandgumdropinservicesinthenorthwestofenglandaprogrammaticevaluation AT beynoncaryl feasibilityandacceptabilityofpointofcarehivtestingincommunityoutreachandgumdropinservicesinthenorthwestofenglandaprogrammaticevaluation AT taegtmeyermiriam feasibilityandacceptabilityofpointofcarehivtestingincommunityoutreachandgumdropinservicesinthenorthwestofenglandaprogrammaticevaluation |