Cargando…

Trial and error: evaluating and refining a community model of HIV testing in Australia

BACKGROUND: The 2012 regulatory approval of HIV rapid point of care (RPOC) tests in Australia and a national strategic focus on HIV testing provided a catalyst for implementation of non-clinical HIV testing service models. PRONTO! opened in 2013 as a two-year trial delivering peer-led community-base...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ryan, Kathleen E., Pedrana, Alisa, Leitinger, David, Wilkinson, Anna L., Locke, Peter, Hellard, Margaret E., Stoové, Mark
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5635501/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29017561
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2635-z
_version_ 1783270299285848064
author Ryan, Kathleen E.
Pedrana, Alisa
Leitinger, David
Wilkinson, Anna L.
Locke, Peter
Hellard, Margaret E.
Stoové, Mark
author_facet Ryan, Kathleen E.
Pedrana, Alisa
Leitinger, David
Wilkinson, Anna L.
Locke, Peter
Hellard, Margaret E.
Stoové, Mark
author_sort Ryan, Kathleen E.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The 2012 regulatory approval of HIV rapid point of care (RPOC) tests in Australia and a national strategic focus on HIV testing provided a catalyst for implementation of non-clinical HIV testing service models. PRONTO! opened in 2013 as a two-year trial delivering peer-led community-based HIV RPOC tests targeting gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBM), with the aim of increasing HIV testing frequency. Initial data suggested this aim was not achieved and, as part of a broader service evaluation, we sought to explore client acceptability and barriers to testing at PRONTO! to refine the service model. METHODS: We present descriptive and thematic analyses of data from two in-depth evaluation surveys and four focus groups with PRONTO! clients focused on service acceptability, client testing history, intentions to test and barriers to testing for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). RESULTS: The three novel aspects of the PRONTO! model, testing environment, rapid-testing, peer-staff, were reported to be highly acceptable among survey and focus group participants. Focus group discussions revealed that the PRONTO! model reduced anxiety associated with HIV testing and created a comfortable environment conducive to discussing sexual risk and health. However, an absence of STI testing at PRONTO!, driven by restrictions on medical subsidies for STI testing and limited funds available at the service level created a barrier to HIV testing. An overwhelming majority of PRONTO! clients reported usually testing for STIs alongside HIV and most reported plans to seek STI testing after testing for HIV at PRONTO!. When deciding where, when and what to test for, clients reported balancing convenience and relative risk and consequences for each infection as guiding their decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: A community-based and peer-led HIV testing model reduced previously reported barriers to HIV testing, while introducing new barriers. The absence of STI testing at PRONTO! and the need to access multiple services for comprehensive sexual health screening, created a significant service engagement barrier for some clients. Understanding client motivations to access testing and ensuring novel service models meet client needs is crucial for developing acceptable sexual health services for high-risk populations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5635501
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56355012017-10-18 Trial and error: evaluating and refining a community model of HIV testing in Australia Ryan, Kathleen E. Pedrana, Alisa Leitinger, David Wilkinson, Anna L. Locke, Peter Hellard, Margaret E. Stoové, Mark BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: The 2012 regulatory approval of HIV rapid point of care (RPOC) tests in Australia and a national strategic focus on HIV testing provided a catalyst for implementation of non-clinical HIV testing service models. PRONTO! opened in 2013 as a two-year trial delivering peer-led community-based HIV RPOC tests targeting gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBM), with the aim of increasing HIV testing frequency. Initial data suggested this aim was not achieved and, as part of a broader service evaluation, we sought to explore client acceptability and barriers to testing at PRONTO! to refine the service model. METHODS: We present descriptive and thematic analyses of data from two in-depth evaluation surveys and four focus groups with PRONTO! clients focused on service acceptability, client testing history, intentions to test and barriers to testing for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). RESULTS: The three novel aspects of the PRONTO! model, testing environment, rapid-testing, peer-staff, were reported to be highly acceptable among survey and focus group participants. Focus group discussions revealed that the PRONTO! model reduced anxiety associated with HIV testing and created a comfortable environment conducive to discussing sexual risk and health. However, an absence of STI testing at PRONTO!, driven by restrictions on medical subsidies for STI testing and limited funds available at the service level created a barrier to HIV testing. An overwhelming majority of PRONTO! clients reported usually testing for STIs alongside HIV and most reported plans to seek STI testing after testing for HIV at PRONTO!. When deciding where, when and what to test for, clients reported balancing convenience and relative risk and consequences for each infection as guiding their decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: A community-based and peer-led HIV testing model reduced previously reported barriers to HIV testing, while introducing new barriers. The absence of STI testing at PRONTO! and the need to access multiple services for comprehensive sexual health screening, created a significant service engagement barrier for some clients. Understanding client motivations to access testing and ensuring novel service models meet client needs is crucial for developing acceptable sexual health services for high-risk populations. BioMed Central 2017-10-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5635501/ /pubmed/29017561 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2635-z Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ryan, Kathleen E.
Pedrana, Alisa
Leitinger, David
Wilkinson, Anna L.
Locke, Peter
Hellard, Margaret E.
Stoové, Mark
Trial and error: evaluating and refining a community model of HIV testing in Australia
title Trial and error: evaluating and refining a community model of HIV testing in Australia
title_full Trial and error: evaluating and refining a community model of HIV testing in Australia
title_fullStr Trial and error: evaluating and refining a community model of HIV testing in Australia
title_full_unstemmed Trial and error: evaluating and refining a community model of HIV testing in Australia
title_short Trial and error: evaluating and refining a community model of HIV testing in Australia
title_sort trial and error: evaluating and refining a community model of hiv testing in australia
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5635501/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29017561
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2635-z
work_keys_str_mv AT ryankathleene trialanderrorevaluatingandrefiningacommunitymodelofhivtestinginaustralia
AT pedranaalisa trialanderrorevaluatingandrefiningacommunitymodelofhivtestinginaustralia
AT leitingerdavid trialanderrorevaluatingandrefiningacommunitymodelofhivtestinginaustralia
AT wilkinsonannal trialanderrorevaluatingandrefiningacommunitymodelofhivtestinginaustralia
AT lockepeter trialanderrorevaluatingandrefiningacommunitymodelofhivtestinginaustralia
AT hellardmargarete trialanderrorevaluatingandrefiningacommunitymodelofhivtestinginaustralia
AT stoovemark trialanderrorevaluatingandrefiningacommunitymodelofhivtestinginaustralia