HIV result giving. Is it time to change our thinking?
Loretta M. Healey A C , Catherine C. O’Connor A and David J. Templeton A BA Royal Prince Alfred Sexual Health Clinic, Ground floor, Page Building, RPA Hospital, Missenden Road, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia.
B National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: healeyl@email.cs.nsw.gov.au
Sexual Health 7(1) 8-10 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH09042
Submitted: 21 April 2009 Accepted: 1 December 2009 Published: 15 February 2010
Abstract
Background: Ensuring patients receive post-test discussion when collecting HIV test results is an integral component of the HIV testing process. New South Wales Health Department (NSW Health) policy recommends that all patients be given their HIV results in person. We assessed the number of patients who returned for HIV test results to Royal Prince Alfred Sexual Health Clinic in Sydney, Australia, and predictors of return. Methods: The files of 218 patients having consecutive HIV tests from the beginning of January to the end of April 2007 were manually reviewed. Non-consenting patients and those returning to the clinic for another reason were excluded. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with return for HIV results in person within 4 weeks of having the test. Results: Seventy-two of 159 patients (45%) returned for their HIV result within 4 weeks of testing. Independent predictors of return were male gender (P = 0.041), attending the outreach men-only (v. base) clinic (P = 0.017), first HIV test at the clinic (P = 0.002) and sex overseas in the past year (P = 0.048). Conclusion: Over one-half of patients did not collect their HIV results in person and thus did not receive any post-test discussion. The strongest predictor of return for HIV test results was having a first HIV test at the clinic. Current NSW Health policy is failing to achieve high levels of HIV post-test discussion. For many patients, giving results by telephone may be a more appropriate strategy to ensure HIV post-test discussion.
Additional keywords: HIV, post-test discussion, results.
Acknowledgements
We thank Priyadi Prihaswan for providing technical support for the study.
[1] Bourne C, Edwards B, Shaw M, Gowers A, Rodgers C, Ferson M. Sexually transmissible infection guidelines for men who have sex with men. Sex Health 2008; 5 189–91.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | [verified December 2009].
[4]
[5] NSW Department of Health Year in review: communicable disease surveillance, NSW, 2007. N S W Public Health Bull 2008; 19 85–95.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[6] Chan E, McNulty A, Tribe K. Who returns for HIV screening test results? Int J STD AIDS 2007; 18 171–4.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[7] Wiley D, Ralph R, Ford W, Simon P. Failure to learn human immunodeficiency virus test results in Los Angeles public sexually transmitted disease clinics. Sex Transm Dis 1998; 25 342–5.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |
[8] Erbelding E, Chung S, Zenilman J. Following-up for HIV test results: what limits return in an STD clinic population? Int J STD AIDS 2004; 15 29–32.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |
[9] Tsu R, Burm M, Gilhooly J, Sells C. Telephone vs. face-to-face notification of HIV results in high-risk youth. J Adolesc Health 2002; 30 154–60.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[10] Schluter W, Judson F, Baro’n A, McGill W, Marine M, Douglas J. Usefulness of human immunodeficiency virus post-test counseling by telephone for low-risk clients of an urban sexually transmitted diseases clinic. Sex Transm Dis 1996; 23 190–7.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |
[11] McKinstry L, Goldbaum G, Meischke H. Telephone notification of HIV test results: impact in King County, Washington. Sex Transm Dis 2007; 34 796–800.
| PubMed |
