Clinic-based interventions to increase preexposure prophylaxis awareness and uptake among United States patients attending an obstetrics and gynecology clinic in Baltimore, Maryland.

Autor: Wang R; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. Electronic address: rzwang@jhmi.edu., Fruhauf TF; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD., Sao SS; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD., Gingher EL; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD., Martin SJ; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD., Coleman JS; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: American journal of obstetrics and gynecology [Am J Obstet Gynecol] 2023 Oct; Vol. 229 (4), pp. 423.e1-423.e8. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Jul 31.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.07.046
Abstrakt: Background: Cisgender women account for 1 of every 5 new US HIV diagnoses, with most cases (85%) attributed to heterosexual contact. HIV preexposure prophylaxis is an effective prevention strategy; however, preexposure prophylaxis awareness and prescriptions among women are low.
Objective: This study aimed to increase preexposure prophylaxis counseling and uptake among cisgender women attending obstetrics and gynecology clinics.
Study Design: The study included 3 obstetrics and gynecology clinics within a single health system in a high HIV prevalence region. There were 3 phases: baseline (the 3-month period before the clinical trial that included provider education and training of a registered nurse about preexposure prophylaxis), clinical trial (the 3-month period during which eligible patients were randomized to an active control or preexposure prophylaxis registered nurse intervention), and maintenance (the 3-month period after the trial ended). Electronic medical record clinical decision support tools were available to both arms during the clinical trial, which included best practice alerts, order sets, progress note templates, and written and video preexposure prophylaxis educational materials for patients. In the intervention arm, a preexposure prophylaxis nurse contacted and counseled patients and was equipped to prescribe preexposure prophylaxis. Moreover, this study evaluated the phases through the "reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance" framework. The primary outcome of the study was effectiveness (eg, percentage of eligible patients with documented HIV prevention counseling in the electronic medical record or preexposure prophylaxis prescriptions). The secondary outcomes included reach (eg, percentage of best practice alerts that providers acted on or the percentage of eligible patients who spoke with the preexposure prophylaxis registered nurse), adoption (eg, percentage of eligible patients with a best practice alert that triggered or the percentage of eligible patients the preexposure prophylaxis registered nurse attempted to contact), and maintenance (eg, percentage of patients with documented HIV prevention counseling or preexposure prophylaxis prescriptions during the maintenance phase).
Results: There were 904 unique patients in all phases with a mean age of 28.8±7.7 years, and 416 patients (46%) were pregnant; moreover, 436 patients were randomized in the clinical trial phase. Concerning reach and adoption, best practice alerts were triggered for 100% of eligible encounters; however, the providers acted on 52% of them. The preexposure prophylaxis nurse attempted to contact every patient and successfully spoke with 81.2% of them in the preexposure prophylaxis registered nurse arm. Concerning effectiveness, there were significantly more patients counseled about preexposure prophylaxis in the preexposure prophylaxis registered nurse group than in the active control group (66.5% vs 12.3%, respectively; P<.001), although preexposure prophylaxis prescriptions were equivalent (P=1.0). Among the subgroup of patients who were counseled about preexposure prophylaxis, 18.5% of patients in the active control arm and 3.4% in the preexposure prophylaxis registered nurse arm were prescribed preexposure prophylaxis (P=.02). Concerning maintenance, clinical decision support tools alone resulted in preexposure prophylaxis counseling of 1.0% of patients during the maintenance phase vs 0.6% of patients during the baseline phase and 11.2% of patients during the clinical trial phase (P<.001). Preexposure prophylaxis prescriptions were not statistically different among the 3 phases (P=.096).
Conclusion: A preexposure prophylaxis nurse effectively increased HIV prevention discussions but did not lead to more preexposure prophylaxis prescriptions than the preexposure prophylaxis-focused clinical decision support tools used by providers. The decrease in preexposure prophylaxis counseling after the trial phase suggests that persistent interventions are needed to maintain effects.
(Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: