User login
MONTREAL — HIV screening of pregnant women falls well short of national guidelines, particularly among patients seen in private practice, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology.
“We have to really reinforce with all providers the importance of universal screening,” said Dr. Harold Wiesenfeld, senior investigator of the study, which found that patients were 17.5 times less likely to undergo screening in private practice than were those seen in a clinic setting.
The study of 300 women revealed that 61% had no HIV screening results in their medical record at the time of parturition.
Guidelines that were adopted in 1999 by the Institute of Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend routine, universal HIV screening in pregnancy to avoid vertical transmission, noted study presenter Margaret Kennedy, who is a medical student at the University of Pittsburgh.
But among the study's subjects, all of whom were questioned up to 72 hours before delivery, only 65% reported undergoing HIV screening during pregnancy, while 25% reported no screening, and 10% were not sure if they had been tested.
A multivariate analysis revealed that being white and married were each independently associated with a threefold greater risk of not being screened.
The provider's influence was the most important factor in screening, said Ms. Kennedy.
Women whose provider did not consider screening important were 14 times more likely to be unscreened; those whose providers considered screening optional were 2.9 times more likely to be unscreened. On the other hand, women whose providers encouraged screening were 3.7 times more likely to have undergone screening.
“My personal opinion is the importance of HIV screening is not stressed in many patient/provider encounters,” said Dr. Wiesenfeld, who is also with the university. “Some providers don't think HIV is relevant to their population because they have an affluent, white population. It mirrors chlamydia screening. They don't think their patients are at risk.”
A comparison of medical records with subjects' responses revealed some recall bias: Two percent of those who reported having been tested had actually declined testing. Of those who reporting no screening, 11% had actually been screened (35% said they had not been offered screening, and 65% said they had declined). In addition, 17% of those who were unsure had been screened.
“Universal offering of HIV screening as an opt-out, in conjunction with encouragement from providers, may greatly increase prenatal HIV screening rates,” she said.
“Universal HIV screening is not at the rates we would like across the country,” concluded Dr. Wiesenfeld.
“The take-home message is that it's low—but what's more important is who is not being screened. Women who are white, and affluent, and in a private practice center … are less likely to be screened, as are those who don't feel their provider is encouraging it,” he added.
The investigators said they had no conflicts of interest.
MONTREAL — HIV screening of pregnant women falls well short of national guidelines, particularly among patients seen in private practice, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology.
“We have to really reinforce with all providers the importance of universal screening,” said Dr. Harold Wiesenfeld, senior investigator of the study, which found that patients were 17.5 times less likely to undergo screening in private practice than were those seen in a clinic setting.
The study of 300 women revealed that 61% had no HIV screening results in their medical record at the time of parturition.
Guidelines that were adopted in 1999 by the Institute of Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend routine, universal HIV screening in pregnancy to avoid vertical transmission, noted study presenter Margaret Kennedy, who is a medical student at the University of Pittsburgh.
But among the study's subjects, all of whom were questioned up to 72 hours before delivery, only 65% reported undergoing HIV screening during pregnancy, while 25% reported no screening, and 10% were not sure if they had been tested.
A multivariate analysis revealed that being white and married were each independently associated with a threefold greater risk of not being screened.
The provider's influence was the most important factor in screening, said Ms. Kennedy.
Women whose provider did not consider screening important were 14 times more likely to be unscreened; those whose providers considered screening optional were 2.9 times more likely to be unscreened. On the other hand, women whose providers encouraged screening were 3.7 times more likely to have undergone screening.
“My personal opinion is the importance of HIV screening is not stressed in many patient/provider encounters,” said Dr. Wiesenfeld, who is also with the university. “Some providers don't think HIV is relevant to their population because they have an affluent, white population. It mirrors chlamydia screening. They don't think their patients are at risk.”
A comparison of medical records with subjects' responses revealed some recall bias: Two percent of those who reported having been tested had actually declined testing. Of those who reporting no screening, 11% had actually been screened (35% said they had not been offered screening, and 65% said they had declined). In addition, 17% of those who were unsure had been screened.
“Universal offering of HIV screening as an opt-out, in conjunction with encouragement from providers, may greatly increase prenatal HIV screening rates,” she said.
“Universal HIV screening is not at the rates we would like across the country,” concluded Dr. Wiesenfeld.
“The take-home message is that it's low—but what's more important is who is not being screened. Women who are white, and affluent, and in a private practice center … are less likely to be screened, as are those who don't feel their provider is encouraging it,” he added.
The investigators said they had no conflicts of interest.
MONTREAL — HIV screening of pregnant women falls well short of national guidelines, particularly among patients seen in private practice, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology.
“We have to really reinforce with all providers the importance of universal screening,” said Dr. Harold Wiesenfeld, senior investigator of the study, which found that patients were 17.5 times less likely to undergo screening in private practice than were those seen in a clinic setting.
The study of 300 women revealed that 61% had no HIV screening results in their medical record at the time of parturition.
Guidelines that were adopted in 1999 by the Institute of Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend routine, universal HIV screening in pregnancy to avoid vertical transmission, noted study presenter Margaret Kennedy, who is a medical student at the University of Pittsburgh.
But among the study's subjects, all of whom were questioned up to 72 hours before delivery, only 65% reported undergoing HIV screening during pregnancy, while 25% reported no screening, and 10% were not sure if they had been tested.
A multivariate analysis revealed that being white and married were each independently associated with a threefold greater risk of not being screened.
The provider's influence was the most important factor in screening, said Ms. Kennedy.
Women whose provider did not consider screening important were 14 times more likely to be unscreened; those whose providers considered screening optional were 2.9 times more likely to be unscreened. On the other hand, women whose providers encouraged screening were 3.7 times more likely to have undergone screening.
“My personal opinion is the importance of HIV screening is not stressed in many patient/provider encounters,” said Dr. Wiesenfeld, who is also with the university. “Some providers don't think HIV is relevant to their population because they have an affluent, white population. It mirrors chlamydia screening. They don't think their patients are at risk.”
A comparison of medical records with subjects' responses revealed some recall bias: Two percent of those who reported having been tested had actually declined testing. Of those who reporting no screening, 11% had actually been screened (35% said they had not been offered screening, and 65% said they had declined). In addition, 17% of those who were unsure had been screened.
“Universal offering of HIV screening as an opt-out, in conjunction with encouragement from providers, may greatly increase prenatal HIV screening rates,” she said.
“Universal HIV screening is not at the rates we would like across the country,” concluded Dr. Wiesenfeld.
“The take-home message is that it's low—but what's more important is who is not being screened. Women who are white, and affluent, and in a private practice center … are less likely to be screened, as are those who don't feel their provider is encouraging it,” he added.
The investigators said they had no conflicts of interest.