P5-S7.17 Accepting the good with the bad: “barriers and facilitators of community-based HIV testing services for gay men: a systematic review”
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background With a global focus on increased HIV testing among high risk groups including men who have sex with men (MSM), many community-based HIV testing services have been established in recent years with the goal of increasing testing opportunities for populations at risk. To better understand the acceptability of community based HIV testing models targeting MSM from the provider and consumer perspective we systematically reviewed published studies. Methods We searched Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases from 1980 to October 2010. Studies were included if they described acceptability of community based HIV testing services targeting MSM, including outreach settings (eg, saunas, public events), collected through surveys, in-depth interviews, focus groups, or exit forms. A quantitative descriptive analysis of the barriers and facilitators of community based HIV testing identified by service providers and consumers was conducted. Results We identified 25 papers that met our selection criteria and were included in the review see Abstract P5-S7.17 table 1. Twenty one studies focused on facilitators from the consumers' perspective, with testing convenience, provision of rapid testing, and acceptability/feeling comfortable with settings reported at factors that facilitated seeking HIV testing at community based services. From the provider perspective (six studies) key factors enhancing service acceptability were client friendly protocols, service promotion, offering additional clinical services, and effective protocols for follow-up and referral. Sixteen studies captured barriers to using community based HIV testing services from the consumer perspective and the main issue reported related to readiness to receive results on the same day or in the community-based environment. Providers in six studies reported difficulties in follow-up, testing in outreach settings, cost, providing adequate staff training, managing workload and developing and maintaining referral pathways as key barriers. Abstract P5-S7.17 Table 1 Summary of community HIV testing services (sample size) (n=25) Category Subcategory All services n (%) Location Canada 1 (4.0) Hong Kong 1 (4.0) New Zealand 1 (4.0) Switzerland 1 (4.0) The Netherlands 3 (12.0) UK 3 (12.0) USA 15 (60.0) Target group MSM 15 (60.0) Multiple 7 (28.0) Unclear – CBO clients 3 (12.0) Services type* CBO/community centre 10 (40.0) STD clinic 3 (12.0) Mobile testing facility 1 (4.0) Needle exchange programs 2 (8.0) Venue-based outreach (bar, club, sauna) 9 (36.0) Combination (eg, CBO, outreach, mobile testing facility). 5 (20.0) Rapid testing offered Yes 13 (52.0) No 5 (20.0) Yes– in combination with standard testing 4 (16.0) Unclear 3 (12.0) Study design Case studies 1 (4.0) Clinical audit 1 (4.0) Cross-sectional studies 4 (16.0) Evaluation reports 4 (16.0) Pilot/feasibility studies 4 (16.0) Qualitative studies 10 (40.0) Randomised trails (RCT) 1 (4.0) Data collection methods* Client surveys (including exit forms) 15 (60.0) Focus groups 2 (8.0) In-depth interviews 5 (20.0) Provider surveys 2 (8.0) Qualitative phone interviews 3 (12.0) Study participants Clients 17 (68.0) Providers 4 (16.0) Clients & providers 4 (16.0) * Service types and data collection methods are not mutually exclusive, so % do not add to 100% Conclusion Acceptability from both consumers and service providers is important to ensure an efficient and sustainable service. The experiences of many other services collated in this review will help other organisations address potential barriers and facilitators to the implementation of community-based HIV testing services.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».