Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, general practitioners (GPs) play a key role in provider-initiated HIV testing, but opportunities for timely diagnosis are regularly missed. We implemented an educational intervention to improve HIV testing by GPs from 2015 to 2020, and observed a 7% increase in testing in an evaluation using laboratory data. The objective for the current study was to gain a deeper understanding of whether and how practices and perceptions of GPs' HIV/sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing behaviour changed following the intervention.
METHODS: We performed a mixed-methods study using questionnaires and semi-structured interviews to assess self-reported changes in HIV/STI testing by participating GPs. Questionnaires were completed by participants at the end of the final educational sessions from 2017 through 2020, and participating GPs were interviewed from January through March 2020. Questionnaire data were analysed descriptively, and open question responses were categorised thematically. Interview data were analysed following thematic analysis methods.
RESULTS: In total, 101/103 participants completed questionnaires. Of 65 participants that were included in analyses on the self-reported effect of the programme, forty-seven (72%) reported it had changed their HIV/STI testing, including improved STI consultations, adherence to the STI consultation guideline, more proactive HIV testing, and more extragenital STI testing. Patients' risk factors, patients' requests and costs were most important in selecting STI tests ordered. Eight participants were interviewed and 15 themes on improved testing were identified, including improved HIV risk-assessment, more proactive testing for HIV/STI, more focus on HIV indicator conditions and extragenital STI testing, and tools to address HIV during consultations. However, several persistent barriers for optimal HIV/STI testing by GPs were identified, including HIV-related stigma and low perceived risk.
CONCLUSIONS: Most GPs reported improved HIV/STI knowledge, attitude and testing, but there was a discrepancy between reported changes in HIV testing and observed increases using laboratory data. Our findings highlight challenges in implementation of effective interventions, and in their evaluation. Lessons learned from this intervention may inform follow-up initiatives to keep GPs actively engaged in HIV testing and care, on our way to zero new HIV infections.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | 201 |
Pages (from-to) | 201 |
Number of pages | 1 |
Journal | BMC primary care |
Volume | 24 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Dec 2023 |
Keywords
- General practitioner
- HIV testing
- Medical education
- Mixed-methods
- Primary care
- Sexually transmitted infections
Access to Document
Other files and links
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver
}
In: BMC primary care, Vol. 24, No. 1, 201, 12.2023, p. 201.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Understanding the effect of an educational intervention to optimize HIV testing strategies in primary care in Amsterdam - results of a mixed-methods study
AU - Bogers, Saskia
AU - Nieuwkerk, Pythia
AU - van Dijk, Nynke
AU - Schim van der Loeff, Maarten
AU - Geerlings, Suzanne
AU - van Bergen, Jan
AU - HIV Transmission Elimination AMsterdam (H-TEAM) Consortium
AU - Reiss, P.
N1 - Funding Information: This project is funded by Aidsfonds (grant number: P-42702) and the H-TEAM initiative. The H-TEAM initiative is supported by Aidsfonds (grant number: 2013169), Stichting Amsterdam Dinner Foundation, Bristol-Myers Squibb International Corp. (study number: AI424-541), Gilead Sciences Europe Ltd (grant number: PA-HIV-PREP-16–0024), Gilead Sciences (protocol numbers: CO-NL-276–4222, CO-US-276–1712), and M.A.C AIDS Fund. Funding Information: We would like to thank all GPs that participated in this study, Elaa for the assistance in recruitment and Marcel van Dijk in collaborating in the conduction of the interviews. We thank AMC-LAKC, Comicro BV, OLVG Laboratory, Reinier Haga MDC, GGD-Streeklab, ATAL-Huisarts and SHO in their collaboration. Finally, we thank all members of the H-TEAM consortium. HIV Transmission Elimination AMsterdam (H-TEAM) Consortium T. van Benthem10, J.E.A.M. van Bergen6,9, D. Bons11, G.J. de Bree12;13, P. Brokx14, U. Davidovich10;15, F. Deug16, S.E. Geerlings1;2;3, M. Heidenrijk12, E. Hoornenborg10, M. Prins10;13, P. Reiss12;14, A. van Sighem17, M. van der Valk13;17, J. de Wit18, W. Zuilhof16, N. Schat12, D. Smith12, M. van Agtmael19, J. Ananworanich20, D. Van de Beek21, G.E.L. van den Berk22, D. Bezemer17, A. van Bijnen16, J.P. Bil10, W.L. Blok21, S. Bogers1;2;3, M. Bomers19, A. Boyd10;17, W. Brokking23, D. Burger24, K. Brinkman22, M. de Bruin25, S. Bruisten10, L. Coyer10, R. van Crevel26, M. Dijkstra10, Y.T. van Duijnhoven10, A. van Eeden23, L. Elsenburg23, M.A.M. van den Elshout10, E. Ersan27, P. E.V. Felipa10, T.B.H. Geijtenbeek28, J. van Gool10, A. Goorhuis13, M. Groot23, C.A. Hankins12, A. Heijnen29;30, M.M.J Hillebregt17, M. Hommenga10, J.W. Hovius13, N. Brinkman31, Y. Janssen31, K. de Jong10, V. Jongen10, N.A. Kootstra32, R.A. Koup33, F.P. Kroon34, T.J.W. van de Laar35;36, F. Lauw37, M. M. van Leeuwen14, K. Lettinga38, I. Linde10, D.S.E. Loomans10, I.M. van der Lubben10, J.T. van der Meer13, T. Mouhebati16, B.J. Mulder10, J. Mulder39, F.J. Nellen13, A. Nijsters16, H. Nobel13, E.L.M. Op de Coul40, E. Peters19, I.S. Peters10, T. van der Poll13, O. Ratmann41, C. Rokx42, M.F. Schim van der Loeff1;8, W.E.M. Schouten22, J. Schouten10, J. Veenstra38, A. Verbon42, F. Verdult14, J. de Vocht19, H.J. de Vries10;43;44, S. Vrouenraets38, M. van Vugt13, W.J. Wiersinga13, F.W. Wit13;14, L.R. Woittiez13, S. Zaheri17, P. Zantkuijl16, A. Żakowicz45, M.C. van Zelm46, H.M.L. Zimmermann10. Affiliations: 1. Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Internal Medicine, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2. Amsterdam Institute for Infection and Immunity, infectious diseases, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 3. Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Quality of care, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 4. Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Psychology, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 5. Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Mental Health, Personalized Medicine, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 6. Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of General Practice, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 7. Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Health, Center of Expertise Urban Vitality Amsterdam, The Netherlands 8. Department of Infectious Diseases, Public Health Service of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 9. STI AIDS Netherlands, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 10. Department of Infectious Diseases, Public Health Service of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 11. Trans United Europe, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 12. Department of Global Health, Amsterdam UMC – location AMC, and Amsterdam Institute for Global Health and Development, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 13. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Amsterdam UMC – location AMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 14. Dutch Association of PLHIV, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 15. Department of Social Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 16. Soa Aids Nederland, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 17. Stichting HIV Monitoring, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 18. Department of Interdisciplinary Social Science: Public Health, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands 19. Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam UMC – location VUMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 20. US Military HIV Research Program and the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Bethesda, United States 21. Center of Infection and Immunity Amsterdam (CINIMA), Department of Neurology, Amsterdam UMC – location AMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 22. Department of internal medicine, OLVG – location East, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 23. DC Klinieken, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 24. Department of Pharmacy, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands 25. Aberdeen Health Psychology Group, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom 26. Department of Internal Medicine, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands 27. Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC – location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 28. Laboratory of Experimental Immunology, Amsterdam UMC – location AMC Amsterdam, the Netherlands 29. Sexology Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 30. GP practice Heijnen & de Meij, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 31. Primary Care Amsterdam and Almere (Elaa), Amsterdam, the Netherlands 32. Laboratory for Viral Immune Pathogenesis, Amsterdam UMC – location AMC Amsterdam, the Netherlands 33. Immunology Laboratory, Vaccine Research Center, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland, USA 34. Department of Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands 35. Department of Medical Microbiology, OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 36. Department of Donor Medicine Research, Laboratory of Blood-borne Infections, Sanquin Research, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 37. Department of Internal Medicine, Medical Center Jan van Goyen, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 38. Department of Internal Medicine, OLVG – location West, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 39. Department of Internal Medicine, Slotervaart Hospital (former), Amsterdam, the Netherlands 40. Epidemiology and Surveillance Unit, Center for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, the Netherlands 41. School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom 42. Department of Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands 43. Center for Infection and Immunology, Amsterdam (CINIMA), Amsterdam UMC – location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 44. Department of Dermatology, Amsterdam UMC – location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 45. AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 46. Department of Virology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands Publisher Copyright: © 2023, BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2023/12
Y1 - 2023/12
N2 - BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, general practitioners (GPs) play a key role in provider-initiated HIV testing, but opportunities for timely diagnosis are regularly missed. We implemented an educational intervention to improve HIV testing by GPs from 2015 to 2020, and observed a 7% increase in testing in an evaluation using laboratory data. The objective for the current study was to gain a deeper understanding of whether and how practices and perceptions of GPs' HIV/sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing behaviour changed following the intervention.METHODS: We performed a mixed-methods study using questionnaires and semi-structured interviews to assess self-reported changes in HIV/STI testing by participating GPs. Questionnaires were completed by participants at the end of the final educational sessions from 2017 through 2020, and participating GPs were interviewed from January through March 2020. Questionnaire data were analysed descriptively, and open question responses were categorised thematically. Interview data were analysed following thematic analysis methods.RESULTS: In total, 101/103 participants completed questionnaires. Of 65 participants that were included in analyses on the self-reported effect of the programme, forty-seven (72%) reported it had changed their HIV/STI testing, including improved STI consultations, adherence to the STI consultation guideline, more proactive HIV testing, and more extragenital STI testing. Patients' risk factors, patients' requests and costs were most important in selecting STI tests ordered. Eight participants were interviewed and 15 themes on improved testing were identified, including improved HIV risk-assessment, more proactive testing for HIV/STI, more focus on HIV indicator conditions and extragenital STI testing, and tools to address HIV during consultations. However, several persistent barriers for optimal HIV/STI testing by GPs were identified, including HIV-related stigma and low perceived risk.CONCLUSIONS: Most GPs reported improved HIV/STI knowledge, attitude and testing, but there was a discrepancy between reported changes in HIV testing and observed increases using laboratory data. Our findings highlight challenges in implementation of effective interventions, and in their evaluation. Lessons learned from this intervention may inform follow-up initiatives to keep GPs actively engaged in HIV testing and care, on our way to zero new HIV infections.
AB - BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, general practitioners (GPs) play a key role in provider-initiated HIV testing, but opportunities for timely diagnosis are regularly missed. We implemented an educational intervention to improve HIV testing by GPs from 2015 to 2020, and observed a 7% increase in testing in an evaluation using laboratory data. The objective for the current study was to gain a deeper understanding of whether and how practices and perceptions of GPs' HIV/sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing behaviour changed following the intervention.METHODS: We performed a mixed-methods study using questionnaires and semi-structured interviews to assess self-reported changes in HIV/STI testing by participating GPs. Questionnaires were completed by participants at the end of the final educational sessions from 2017 through 2020, and participating GPs were interviewed from January through March 2020. Questionnaire data were analysed descriptively, and open question responses were categorised thematically. Interview data were analysed following thematic analysis methods.RESULTS: In total, 101/103 participants completed questionnaires. Of 65 participants that were included in analyses on the self-reported effect of the programme, forty-seven (72%) reported it had changed their HIV/STI testing, including improved STI consultations, adherence to the STI consultation guideline, more proactive HIV testing, and more extragenital STI testing. Patients' risk factors, patients' requests and costs were most important in selecting STI tests ordered. Eight participants were interviewed and 15 themes on improved testing were identified, including improved HIV risk-assessment, more proactive testing for HIV/STI, more focus on HIV indicator conditions and extragenital STI testing, and tools to address HIV during consultations. However, several persistent barriers for optimal HIV/STI testing by GPs were identified, including HIV-related stigma and low perceived risk.CONCLUSIONS: Most GPs reported improved HIV/STI knowledge, attitude and testing, but there was a discrepancy between reported changes in HIV testing and observed increases using laboratory data. Our findings highlight challenges in implementation of effective interventions, and in their evaluation. Lessons learned from this intervention may inform follow-up initiatives to keep GPs actively engaged in HIV testing and care, on our way to zero new HIV infections.
KW - General practitioner
KW - HIV testing
KW - Medical education
KW - Mixed-methods
KW - Primary care
KW - Sexually transmitted infections
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85172830363&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-023-02161-y
DO - https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-023-02161-y
M3 - Article
C2 - 37777732
SN - 2731-4553
VL - 24
SP - 201
JO - BMC primary care
JF - BMC primary care
IS - 1
M1 - 201
ER -