Abstract
AbstractLittle is known about screening tools for adults in high HIV burden contexts. We use exit survey data collected at outpatient departments in Malawi (n = 1038) to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values of screening tools that include questions about sexual behavior and use of health services. We compare a full tool (seven relevant questions) to a reduced tool (five questions, excluding sexual behavior measures) and to standard of care (two questions, never tested for HIV or tested > 12 months ago, or seeking care for suspected STI). Suspect STI and ≥ 3 sexual partners were associated with HIV positivity, but had weak sensitivity and specificity. The full tool (using the optimal cutoff score of ≥ 3) would achieve 55.6% sensitivity and 84.9% specificity for HIV positivity; the reduced tool (optimal cutoff score ≥ 2) would achieve 59.3% sensitivity and 68.5% specificity; and standard of care 77.8% sensitivity and 47.8% specificity. Screening tools for HIV testing in outpatient departments do not offer clear advantages over standard of care.
Funder
National Institute of Mental Health
National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Fogarty International Center
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
UCLA Center for AIDS Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Infectious Diseases,Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Social Psychology
Reference46 articles.
1. UNAIDS Understanding Fast-Track. Accelerating action to end the AIDS epidemic by 2030. Geneva: Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS; 2015.
2. UNAIDS. AIDSInfo 2020
3. UNAIDS. Data Report 2019. Geneva. 2019.
4. WHO. Consolidated guidelines on HIV Testing Services for a changing epidemic. Geneva: WHO; 2019.
5. Dwyer-Lindgren L, Cork MA, Sligar A, Steuben KM, Wilson KF, Provost NR, et al. Mapping HIV prevalence in sub-Saharan Africa between 2000 and 2017. Nature. 2019;570(7760):189–93.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献