Clinician Barriers and Facilitators to Routine HIV Testing: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Ann Dalton Bagchi, Tracy Davis
{"title":"Clinician Barriers and Facilitators to Routine HIV Testing: A Systematic Review of the Literature.","authors":"Ann Dalton Bagchi,&nbsp;Tracy Davis","doi":"10.1177/2325958220936014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Routine HIV screening rates are suboptimal.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This systematic review identified barriers to/facilitators of routine HIV testing, categorized them using the socioecological model (SEM), and provided recommendations for interventions to increase screening.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Included articles were indexed in PubMed, EBSCO CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library between 2006 and October 2018.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Included studies were published in English or Spanish and directly assessed providers' barriers/facilitators to routine screening.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>We used a standardized Excel template to extract barriers/facilitators and identify levels in the SEM.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>Intrapersonal factors predominated as barriers, while facilitators were directed at the institutional level.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Policy barriers are not universal across countries. Meta-analysis was not possible. We could not quantify frequency of any given barrier/facilitator.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Increasing reimbursement and adding screening as a quality measure may incentivize HIV testing; however, many interventions would require little resource investment.</p>","PeriodicalId":17328,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care","volume":"19 ","pages":"2325958220936014"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2325958220936014","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2325958220936014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

Background: Routine HIV screening rates are suboptimal.

Objectives: This systematic review identified barriers to/facilitators of routine HIV testing, categorized them using the socioecological model (SEM), and provided recommendations for interventions to increase screening.

Data sources: Included articles were indexed in PubMed, EBSCO CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library between 2006 and October 2018.

Eligibility criteria: Included studies were published in English or Spanish and directly assessed providers' barriers/facilitators to routine screening.

Data extraction: We used a standardized Excel template to extract barriers/facilitators and identify levels in the SEM.

Data synthesis: Intrapersonal factors predominated as barriers, while facilitators were directed at the institutional level.

Limitations: Policy barriers are not universal across countries. Meta-analysis was not possible. We could not quantify frequency of any given barrier/facilitator.

Conclusions: Increasing reimbursement and adding screening as a quality measure may incentivize HIV testing; however, many interventions would require little resource investment.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
临床医生的障碍和促进常规艾滋病毒检测:文献的系统回顾。
背景:常规HIV筛查率不理想。目的:本系统综述确定了常规HIV检测的障碍/促进因素,使用社会生态学模型(SEM)对其进行分类,并提供了增加筛查的干预措施建议。数据来源:收录的文章在PubMed、EBSCO CINAHL、Scopus、Web of Science和Cochrane Library中检索,检索时间为2006年至2018年10月。入选标准:纳入的研究以英语或西班牙语发表,并直接评估提供者对常规筛查的障碍/促进因素。数据提取:我们使用标准化的Excel模板提取障碍/促进因素,并确定SEM中的水平。数据综合:个人因素作为障碍占主导地位,而促进因素则针对机构一级。限制:政策障碍在各国并不普遍。meta分析是不可能的。我们无法量化任何给定障碍/促进者的频率。结论:增加报销和增加筛查作为一种质量措施可以激励HIV检测;然而,许多干预措施只需要很少的资源投资。
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
43
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Impact of Providers as Health Discussants on Black Women's Interest in PrEP for HIV Prevention. The Provider's Role in Retaining Black Women With HIV in Care: A Scoping Review. Rapid Start of Antiretroviral Therapy in a Large Urban Clinic in the US South: Impact on HIV Care Continuum Outcomes and Medication Adherence. Dissemination of the Women-Centred HIV Care Model: A Multimodal Process and Evaluation. Policy and Programming Towards Addressing Treatment Gaps in Adolescents Living with HIV: A Content Analysis of Policy and Programme Documents in Namibia.
×
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