Routine HIV Testing in U.S. Healthcare Settings?

Home>
Specialties>
HIV/AIDS Clinical Care>
Summary and Comment

Routine HIV Testing in U.S. Healthcare Settings?

Despite the 2006 CDC recommendation, offering routine HIV testing is not universal — even among HIV care providers.

In 2006, the CDC recommended routine HIV testing in healthcare settings (http://viajwat.ch/We68T9). Even though this recommendation was evidence based, its adoption has been slow. Consequently, HIV infection is still diagnosed late in the course of disease in many patients in the U.S.

To examine adherence to this 2006 recommendation, investigators analyzed data obtained as part of the CDC's Medical Monitoring Project Provider Survey, conducted from June through September 2009. A total of 735 HIV care providers returned the survey. Of the 506 providers who also had HIV-uninfected patients in their practice, 60% reported offering HIV screening to all patients aged 13 to 64 (except those known to be HIV infected), in accordance with the CDC recommendation. However, 31% offered HIV testing mainly to those at high risk, and 9% did not offer it at all. In multivariate analysis, provider characteristics associated with offering routine HIV testing to all patients were profession (i.e., nurse practitioner, rather than physician), age <50, and black race. Providers who had $≥$ 75 HIV-infected patients in their practice were also more likely to offer such testing.

Comment: Few of us would argue that incorporating HIV screening into routine medical care is not cost effective. Thus, it is quite surprising to see the finding that only 60% of clinicians who provide HIV care and also have HIV-uninfected patients in their practice routinely offer this screening. To quote John F. Kennedy, "If not us, who? If not now, when?"

— Carlos del Rio, MD

Published in Journal Watch HIV/AIDS Clinical Care February 11, 2013

Citation(s):

McNaghten AD et al. Routine HIV testing among providers of HIV care in the United States, 2009. PLoS ONE 2013 Jan; 8:e51231. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051231)

Medline abstract (Free)

Your Remark:

Reader Remarks are intended to encourage lively discussion of clinical topics with your peers in the medical community. We ask that you keep your remarks to a reasonable length, and we reserve the right to withhold publication of remarks that do not meet this standard.

The editors of Journal Watch may respond to Reader Remarks, but we cannot promise to respond to a particular remark.

Remark subject:*

Your remark:*

Fields marked with an * are required.

Name as you'd like it to appear:
First & middle initial:*

Last:*

Email address (will not
be published):*

Professional specialty:*

Place of work (optional):

Submitting a comment indicates you have read and agreed to the remark guidelines and declare:*

No competing interests

Or, the following competing interests (for example, financial stakes or professional relationships):

PRIVACY: We will not use your email address, submitted for a comment, for any other purpose nor sell, rent, or share your e-mail address with any third parties. Please see our Privacy Policy.

CLEAR erases anything you've added in any part of the form. CONTINUE allows you to check your entire post (and edit it if necessary) before submitting.

To ensure that your Reader Remark is not formatted as one long paragraph, precede new paragraphs with either a blank line or an indentation.