Patient perspectives with abbreviated versus standard pre-test HIV counseling in the prenatal setting: a randomized-controlled, non-inferiority trial

Deborah Cohan, Elvira Gomez, Mara Greenberg, Sierra Washington, Edwin D Charlebois, Deborah Cohan, Elvira Gomez, Mara Greenberg, Sierra Washington, Edwin D Charlebois

Abstract

Background: In the US, an unacceptably high percentage of pregnant women do not undergo prenatal HIV testing. Previous studies have found increased uptake of prenatal HIV testing with abbreviated pre-test counseling, however little is known about patient decision making, testing satisfaction and knowledge in this setting.

Methodology/findings: A randomized-controlled, non-inferiority trial was conducted from October 2006 through February 2008 at San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH), the public teaching hospital of the City and County of San Francisco. A total of 278 English- and Spanish-speaking pregnant women were randomized to receive either abbreviated or standard nurse-performed HIV test counseling at the initial prenatal visit. Patient decision making experience was compared between abbreviated versus standard HIV counseling strategies among a sample of low-income, urban, ethnically diverse prenatal patients. The primary outcome was the decisional conflict score (DCS) using O'Connor low-literacy scale and secondary outcomes included satisfaction with test decision, basic HIV knowledge and HIV testing uptake. We conducted an intention-to-treat analysis of 278 women--134 (48.2%) in the abbreviated arm (AA) and 144 (51.8%) in the standard arm (SA). There was no significant difference in the proportion of women with low decisional conflict (71.6% in AA vs. 76.4% in SA, p = .37), and the observed mean difference between the groups of 3.88 (95% CI: -0.65, 8.41) did not exceed the non-inferiority margin. HIV testing uptake was very high (97. 8%) and did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (99.3% in AA vs. 96.5% in SA, p = .12). Likewise, there was no difference in satisfaction with testing decision (97.8% in AA vs. 99.3% in SA, p = .36). However, women in AA had significantly lower mean HIV knowledge scores (78.4%) compared to women in SA (83.7%, p<0.01).

Conclusions/significance: This study suggests that streamlining the pre-test counseling process, while associated with slightly lower knowledge, does not compromise patient decision making or satisfaction regarding HIV testing.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00503308.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1. Flow Diagram Legend.
Figure 1. Flow Diagram Legend.
* Women who were excluded for “other reasons” included women who initially consented to participate in the study but then changed their mind prior to undergoing the questionnaire. # Women who received the Standard instead of the Abbreviated consent due to nurse “error”. @ Women were discontinued from study after pre-test survey completed and they were excluded from the analysis. They were identified as being ineligible only after randomization and administration of pre-test survey.

References

    1. US Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General. Reducing Obstetrician Barriers to Offering HIV Testing. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2002.
    1. (2002) From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Progress toward elimination of perinatal HIV infection–Michigan, 1993–2000. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 51:93–97.
    1. (2002) HIV testing among pregnant women–United States and Canada, 1998–2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 51:1013–1016.
    1. Chou R, Smits AK, Huffman LH, Fu R, Korthuis PT. Prenatal screening for HIV: A review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143:38–54.
    1. Phillips KA, Morrison KR, Sonnad SS, Bleecker T. HIV counseling and testing of pregnant women and women of childbearing age by primary care providers: self-reported beliefs and practices. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1997;14:174–178.
    1. Branson BM, Handsfield HH, Lampe MA, Janssen RS, Taylor AW, et al. Revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults, adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care settings. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2006;55:1–17; quiz CE11-14.
    1. Stringer EM, Stringer JS, Cliver SP, Goldenberg RL, Goepfert AR. Evaluation of a new testing policy for human immunodeficiency virus to improve screening rates. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:1104–1108.
    1. O'Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making. 1995;15:25–30.
    1. O'Connor AM, Stacey D, Rovner D, Holmes-Rovner M, Tetroe J, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001:CD001431.
    1. Simpson WM, Johnstone FD, Boyd FM, Goldberg DJ, Hart GJ, et al. A randomised controlled trial of different approaches to universal antenatal HIV testing: uptake and acceptability and Annex: Antenatal HIV testing - assessment of a routine voluntary approach. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3:1–112.
    1. Ottawa Health Decision Centre at the Ottawa Health Research Institute User Manual Decisional Conflict Scale. Available: . Accessed 2006 Jan 5.
    1. Lalonde L, O'Connor AM, Duguay P, Brassard J, Drake E, et al. Evaluation of a decision aid and a personal risk profile in community pharmacy for patients considering options to improve cardiovascular health: the OPTIONS pilot study. The International Journal of Pharmacy Practice March. 2006:51–62.
    1. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663–694.
    1. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 2006;295:1152–1160.
    1. Dixon WJ, Massey FJ. Introduction to Statistical Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1983.
    1. O'Brien RG, M KE. Applied Analysis of Variance in Behavioral Science. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1993.
    1. Simpson WM, Johnstone FD, Boyd FM, Goldberg DJ, Hart GJ, et al. Uptake and acceptability of antenatal HIV testing: randomised controlled trial of different methods of offering the test. BMJ. 1998;316:262–267.
    1. Carusi D, Learman LA, Posner SF. Human immunodeficiency virus test refusal in pregnancy: a challenge to voluntary testing. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91:540–545.
    1. Cranney A, O'Connor AM, Jacobsen MJ, Tugwell P, Adachi JD, et al. Development and pilot testing of a decision aid for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;47:245–255.
    1. Gattellari M, Ward JE. Will men attribute fault to their GP for adverse effects arising from controversial screening tests? An Australian study using scenarios about PSA screening. J Med Screen. 2004;11:165–169.
    1. Laupacis A, O'Connor AM, Drake ER, Rubens FD, Robblee JA, et al. A decision aid for autologous pre-donation in cardiac surgery–a randomized trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;61:458–466.
    1. Man-Son-Hing M, Laupacis A, O'Connor AM, Biggs J, Drake E, et al. A patient decision aid regarding antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1999;282:737–743.
    1. Murray E, Davis H, Tai SS, Coulter A, Gray A, et al. Randomised controlled trial of an interactive multimedia decision aid on hormone replacement therapy in primary care. BMJ. 2001;323:490–493.
    1. O'Connor AM, Tugwell P, Wells GA, Elmslie T, Jolly E, et al. Randomized trial of a portable, self-administered decision aid for postmenopausal women considering long-term preventive hormone therapy. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:295–303.
    1. Siminoff LA, Ravdin P, Colabianchi N, Sturm CM. Doctor-patient communication patterns in breast cancer adjuvant therapy discussions. Health Expect. 2000;3:26–36.
    1. Rahangdale L, Sarnquist C, Maldonado Y, Cohan D. Patient acceptance of and satisfaction with rapid HIV Testing in a Labor and Delivery Setting. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2008;17:465–471.
    1. Kuppermann M, Learman LA, Gates E, Gregorich SE, Nease RF, Jr, et al. Beyond race or ethnicity and socioeconomic status: predictors of prenatal testing for Down syndrome. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1087–1097.
    1. Kuppermann M, Norton ME, Gates E, Gregorich SE, Learman LA, et al. Computerized prenatal genetic testing decision-assisting tool: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:53–63.
    1. Cohan D, Sarnquist C, Gomez E, Feakins C, Maldonado Y, et al. Increased uptake of HIV testing with the integration of nurse-initiated HIV testing into routine prenatal care. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2008;49:571–573.
    1. National HIV/AIDS Clinicians' Consultation Center. Compendium of State HIV Testing Laws-2008. 2008. Available: . Accessed 2008 Jan 15.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel