Demographic disparities in blood-borne-virus screening in two London Emergency Departments: a case for implied consent.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Aids Care-Psychological and Socio-Medical Aspects of Aids/hiv Pub Date : 2025-03-17 DOI:10.1080/09540121.2025.2477721
Cassandra Fairhead, Tristan J Barber, Hajra Okhai, Russell Durkin, Jennifer Hart, Jessica Pinto, Alan Hunter, Douglas Macdonald, Fiona Burns
{"title":"Demographic disparities in blood-borne-virus screening in two London Emergency Departments: a case for implied consent.","authors":"Cassandra Fairhead, Tristan J Barber, Hajra Okhai, Russell Durkin, Jennifer Hart, Jessica Pinto, Alan Hunter, Douglas Macdonald, Fiona Burns","doi":"10.1080/09540121.2025.2477721","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>\"Opt-out\" Emergency Department (ED) blood-borne-virus screening enables early diagnosis, improving outcomes. Whereas some EDs encourage verbal reminders at blood draw, others emphasise \"implied consent\". Associations between these approaches and screening equity have not been explored. This retrospective cohort evaluation quantified demographic disparities in screening in two EDs following \"reminder model\" screening rollout. Staff attitudes were explored, identifying screening barriers. ED attendees from July-October 2022 were identified electronically. Associations between age, sex, self-identified ethnicity, attendance time and admission status on screening were analysed using odds ratios (ORs). Twenty ED staff underwent semi-structured interviews. There were 33,388 eligible ED attendances (54.8% female; median age 53y). 58.9% of attendees received screening. In unadjusted analysis, the screening rate was higher in men (OR 1.05; 95%CI 1.00-1.10) and in non-admitted attendees. People of Black, Asian or Other ethnic backgrounds had lower rates compared to White ethnicity. Attendees between 5pm-11pm had lower rates and 11pm-9am higher rates compared to 9am-5pm. All associations persisted in multivariable models. Interviews revealed low confidence in follow-up discussion in attendees who opted out and a high workload precluding screening. Demographic disparities were seen in this \"reminder model\" context. Simplifying processes and emphasising implied consent may improve equitable screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":48370,"journal":{"name":"Aids Care-Psychological and Socio-Medical Aspects of Aids/hiv","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aids Care-Psychological and Socio-Medical Aspects of Aids/hiv","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2025.2477721","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

"Opt-out" Emergency Department (ED) blood-borne-virus screening enables early diagnosis, improving outcomes. Whereas some EDs encourage verbal reminders at blood draw, others emphasise "implied consent". Associations between these approaches and screening equity have not been explored. This retrospective cohort evaluation quantified demographic disparities in screening in two EDs following "reminder model" screening rollout. Staff attitudes were explored, identifying screening barriers. ED attendees from July-October 2022 were identified electronically. Associations between age, sex, self-identified ethnicity, attendance time and admission status on screening were analysed using odds ratios (ORs). Twenty ED staff underwent semi-structured interviews. There were 33,388 eligible ED attendances (54.8% female; median age 53y). 58.9% of attendees received screening. In unadjusted analysis, the screening rate was higher in men (OR 1.05; 95%CI 1.00-1.10) and in non-admitted attendees. People of Black, Asian or Other ethnic backgrounds had lower rates compared to White ethnicity. Attendees between 5pm-11pm had lower rates and 11pm-9am higher rates compared to 9am-5pm. All associations persisted in multivariable models. Interviews revealed low confidence in follow-up discussion in attendees who opted out and a high workload precluding screening. Demographic disparities were seen in this "reminder model" context. Simplifying processes and emphasising implied consent may improve equitable screening.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
伦敦两家急诊科血液传播病毒筛查中的人口统计学差异:默示同意的案例。
"选择退出 "急诊科(ED)血液传播病毒筛查可实现早期诊断,提高治疗效果。有些急诊科鼓励在抽血时口头提醒,有些则强调 "默示同意"。这些方法与筛查公平性之间的关联尚未得到探讨。这项回顾性队列评估量化了两家急诊室在推广 "提醒模式 "筛查后筛查中的人口差异。研究还探讨了工作人员的态度,找出了筛查障碍。对 2022 年 7 月至 10 月的急诊室就诊者进行了电子识别。使用几率比 (OR) 分析了年龄、性别、自我认同的种族、就诊时间和入院状态与筛查之间的关系。20 名急诊室工作人员接受了半结构化访谈。符合条件的急诊室就诊人数为 33,388 人(54.8% 为女性;年龄中位数为 53 岁)。58.9%的就诊者接受了筛查。在未经调整的分析中,男性(OR 1.05;95%CI 1.00-1.10)和非入院就诊者的筛查率较高。与白人相比,黑人、亚裔或其他族裔背景的人接受筛查的比例较低。与上午 9 点至下午 5 点相比,下午 5 点至 11 点的就诊率较低,而晚上 11 点至上午 9 点的就诊率较高。所有关联在多变量模型中均持续存在。访谈显示,选择退出的参加者对后续讨论的信心不足,而且工作量大,无法进行筛查。在这种 "提醒模式 "的背景下,还出现了人口统计学差异。简化流程并强调默示同意可提高筛查的公平性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
172
期刊最新文献
Mutations associated with viral resistance to integrase in individuals initiating dolutegravir-containing antiretroviral therapy: retrospective cohort, Brazil 2017-2019. Navigating HIV care in a mobile society: case studies of clinic transfers in South Africa's public health sector. Demographic disparities in blood-borne-virus screening in two London Emergency Departments: a case for implied consent. Substance use patterns among U.S. adults with HIV: identifying priorities for screening and interventions. Using global positioning systems to explore food insecurity among older adults living with HIV, with and without criminal justice involvement.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1