Cargando…

Continuous quality improvement intervention for adolescent and young adult HIV testing services in Kenya improves HIV knowledge

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether continuous quality improvement (CQI) improves quality of HIV testing services for adolescents and young adults (AYA). DESIGN: CQI was introduced at two HIV testing settings: Youth Centre and Voluntary Counseling and Testing (VCT) Center, at a national referral hospit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wagner, Anjuli D., Mugo, Cyrus, Bluemer-Miroite, Shay, Mutiti, Peter M., Wamalwa, Dalton C., Bukusi, David, Neary, Jillian, Njuguna, Irene N., O’Malley, Gabrielle, John-Stewart, Grace C., Slyker, Jennifer A., Kohler, Pamela K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5497779/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28665882
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0000000000001531
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: To determine whether continuous quality improvement (CQI) improves quality of HIV testing services for adolescents and young adults (AYA). DESIGN: CQI was introduced at two HIV testing settings: Youth Centre and Voluntary Counseling and Testing (VCT) Center, at a national referral hospital in Nairobi, Kenya. METHODS: Primary outcomes were AYA satisfaction with HIV testing services, intent to return, and accurate HIV prevention and transmission knowledge. Healthcare worker (HCW) satisfaction assessed staff morale. T tests and interrupted time series analysis using Prais–Winsten regression and generalized estimating equations accounting for temporal trends and autocorrelation were conducted. RESULTS: There were 172 AYA (Youth Centre = 109, VCT = 63) during 6 baseline weeks and 702 (Youth Centre = 454, VCT = 248) during 24 intervention weeks. CQI was associated with an immediate increase in the proportion of AYA with accurate knowledge of HIV transmission at Youth Centre: 18 vs. 63% [adjusted risk difference (aRD) 0.42,95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.63], and a trend at VCT: 38 vs. 72% (aRD 0.30, 95% CI −0.04 to 0.63). CQI was associated with an increase in the proportion of AYA with accurate HIV prevention knowledge in VCT: 46 vs. 61% (aRD 0.39, 95% CI 0.02–0.76), but not Youth Centre (P = 0.759). In VCT, CQI showed a trend towards increased intent to retest (4.0 vs. 4.3; aRD 0.78, 95% CI −0.11 to 1.67), but not at Youth Centre (P = 0.19). CQI was not associated with changes in AYA satisfaction, which was high during baseline and intervention at both clinics (P = 0.384, P = 0.755). HCW satisfaction remained high during intervention and baseline (P = 0.746). CONCLUSION: CQI improved AYA knowledge and did not negatively impact HCW satisfaction. Quality improvement interventions may be useful to improve adolescent-friendly service delivery.