OBJECTIVES:Klick is a clinic-specific, digitally supported outpatient pathway of care for people living with HIV (PLWH). It involves a smartphone application (app) for PLWH to self-manage their care, navigate access to the clinic and communicate with their healthcare provider. We present a patient evaluation of Klick. METHODS:Patients use Klick to book/reschedule appointments, view laboratory results, request medication, access remote nurse-delivered consultations and communicate with clinicians. In October 2022, Klick was evaluated by PLWH through a questionnaire and interviews. RESULTS:Between August 2020 and April 2024, 5859 patients had registered to use Klick; during April 2024 alone, 2509 (43%) used Klick. In October 2022, 1661 PLWH were invited to complete surveys, of whom 362 (22%) responded. These respondents were 95% (340/358) male and 84% (298/354) white, and 63% (227/359) were in the age range 41-60 years. Respondents felt Klick was easy to use (average score 4.3/5), and 92% thought having a clinic-specific app was important/very important. Respondents valued the following app features as important/very important - online booking (93%); viewable results (94%); prescription requests (90%) - and rated their experience of using them highly - 91% for e-booking and 91% for viewable results. A total of 93% said they would recommend Klick to friends and 82% rated Klick as above average/excellent. CONCLUSIONS:PLWH reported high levels of satisfaction using a clinic-specific mHealth app to manage their HIV care and demonstrated sustained active use. Klick was rated easy to use, as helping to meet healthcare needs and as providing a superior experience for some aspects of care. Other HIV clinics or services managing chronic conditions could benefit from the adoption of personalized digital solutions to enhance patient care.

BackgroundIt is cost-effective to perform an HIV test in people with specific indicator conditions (IC) with an undiagnosed HIV prevalence of at least 0.1%. Our aim was to determine the HIV prevalence for 14 different conditions across 20 European countries.MethodsIndividuals aged 18-65 years presenting for care with one of 14 ICs between January 2012 and June 2014 were included and routinely offered an HIV test. Logistic regression assessed factors associated with testing HIV positive. Patients presenting with infectious mononucleosis-like syndrome (IMS) were recruited up until September 2015.ResultsOf 10,877 patients presenting with an IC and included in the analysis, 303 tested positive (2.8%; 95% CI 2.5-3.1%). People presenting with an IC in Southern and Eastern Europe were more likely to test HIV positive as were people presenting with IMS, lymphadenopathy and leukocytopenia/ thrombocytopenia. One third of people diagnosed with HIV after presenting with IMS reported a negative HIV test in the preceding 12 months. Of patients newly diagnosed with HIV where data was available, 92.6% were promptly linked to care; of these 10.4% were reported lost to follow up or dead 12 months after diagnosis.ConclusionThe study showed that 10 conditions had HIV prevalences > 0.1%. These 10 ICs should be adopted into HIV testing and IC specialty guidelines. As IMS presentation can mimic acute HIV sero-conversion and has the highest positivity rate, this IC in particular affords opportunities for earlier diagnosis and public health benefit.

BACKGROUND:Late HIV diagnosis remains one of the challenges in combating the epidemic. Primary care providers play an important role in screening for HIV infection. Our study aims to evaluate the relationship between knowledge and barriers to HIV testing and screening outcomes. The impact of an education program for primary care providers, towards improving HIV testing and late diagnosis rates, is also assessed. METHODS:A self-administered questionnaire that was developed within the framework of the European project OptTEST was used to examine HIV knowledge and barriers to HIV testing scores before and after being involved in an HIV education program. A quasi-experimental design with pre- and post-intervention measures was performed to investigate its impact. We performed multivariable logistic regression analysis to assess the relationship between variables for the HIV testing offer. RESULTS:A total of 20 primary care centers and 454 primary care staff were included. Baseline OptTEST results showed that more knowledgeable staff offered an HIV test more frequently (OR 1.07; CI 95% 1.01-1.13; p = 0.027) and had lower barrier scores (OR 0.89; CI 95% 0.77-0.95; p = 0.005). Nurses had lower scores in knowledge-related items (OR 0.28; CI 95% 0.17-0.46; p<0.001), but higher scores in barrier-related items than physicians (OR 3.28; CI 95% 2.01-5.46; p<0.001). Specific centers with more knowledgeable staff members had a significant association with a greater level of new HIV diagnosis rates (OR 1.61; CI 95% 1.04-2.49; p = 0.032). After the intervention, we found that 12 out of 14 individual questions showed improved scores. In the 6 months after the training program, we similarly found a higher HIV testing rate (OR 1.19; CI 1.02-1.42; p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS:This study highlights the association between knowledge and barriers to HIV testing, including HIV testing rates. It shows that it is possible to modify knowledge and reduce perceived barriers through educational programs, subsequently improving HIV screening outcomes.

There are still important gaps in our understanding of how people will incorporate PrEP into their existing HIV prevention strategies. In this paper, we explore how PrEP use impacted existing sexual risk behaviours and risk reduction strategies using qualitative data from the PROUD study. From February 2014 to January 2016, we conducted 41 in-depth interviews with gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) enrolled in the PROUD PrEP study at sexual health clinics in England. The interviews were conducted in English and were audio-recorded. The recordings were transcribed, coded and analysed using framework analysis. In the interviews, we explored participants' sexual behaviour before joining the study and among those using or who had used PrEP, changes to sexual behaviour after starting PrEP. Participants described the risk behaviour and management strategies before using PrEP, which included irregular condom use, sero-sorting, and strategic positioning. Participants described their sexual risk taking before initiating PrEP in the context of the sexualised use of drugs, geographical spaces linked with higher risk sexual norms, and digitised sexual networking, as well as problematic psychological factors that exacerbated risk taking. The findings highlight that in the main, individuals who were already having frequent condomless sex, added PrEP to the existing range of risk management strategies, influencing the boundaries of the 'rules' for some but not all. While approximately half the participants reduced other risk reduction strategies after starting PrEP, the other half did not alter their behaviours. PrEP provided an additional HIV prevention option to a cohort of GBMSM at high risk of HIV due to inconsistent use of other prevention options. In summary, PrEP provides a critical and necessary additional HIV prevention option that individuals can add to existing strategies in order to enhance protection, at least from HIV. As a daily pill, PrEP offers protection in the context of the sex cultures associated with sexualised drug use, digitised sexual applications and shifting social norms around sexual fulfilment and risk taking. PrEP can offer short or longer-term options for individuals as their sexual desires change over their life course offering protection from HIV during periods of heightened risk. PrEP should not be perceived or positioned in opposition to the existing HIV prevention toolkit, but rather as additive and as a tool that can and is having a substantial impact on HIV.

Objectives The aims of this study were to to assess the feasibility of simultaneous testing for the blood‐borne viruses ( BBV ), HIV , hepatitis C ( HCV ) and hepatitis B ( HBV ), in the Emergency Department ( ED ) and ascertain the seroprevalence for these three viruses in this setting. Methods A pilot BBV testing program was undertaken as part of routine clinical care in the ED . All ED attendees aged between 16 and 65 years old who were able to consent were tested over a 55 week period on an opt out basis. Patients with positive test results were linked to clinical services. Interventions aimed at improving testing rates were implemented and evaluated by quality improvement ( QI ) methodology. Results Of 25,520 age‐eligible ED attendees, 6108 (24%) underwent BBV testing; an additional 1160 (4.5%) underwent a standalone HIV test (total of 7268 (28%) individuals).There were 83/7268 (1.1%) non‐negative (ie reactive or equivocal) results for HIV and 103/6108 (1.7%) and 32/6108 (0.52%) for anti‐ HCV IgG and HB sAg, respectively. Of these, 12 (0.17%), 16 (0.26%) and 8 (0.13%) were new reactive tests for HIV , HCV and HBV , respectively, which were able to be confirmed on a second test. Specific QI interventions led to temporary increases in testing rates. Conclusions An opt out BBV testing program in the ED is feasible and effective at finding new cases. However, the testing rate was low at 24%. Although QI interventions led to some improvement in testing rates, further studies are required to identify ways to achieve sustained increases in testing in this setting.

BACKGROUND:PROUD participants were randomly assigned to receive pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) immediately or after a deferred period of one-year. We report on the acceptability of this open-label wait-listed trial design. METHODS:Participants completed an acceptability questionnaire, which included categorical study acceptability data and free-text data on most and least liked aspects of the study. We also conducted in-depth interviews (IDI) with a purposely selected sub-sample of participants. RESULTS:Acceptability questionnaires were completed by 76% (415/544) of participants. After controlling for age, immediate-group participants were almost twice as likely as deferred-group participants to complete the questionnaire (AOR:1.86;95%CI:1.24,2.81). In quantitative data, the majority of participants in both groups found the wait-listed design acceptable when measured by satisfaction of joining the study, intention to remain in the study, and interest in joining a subsequent study. However, three-quarters thought that the chance of being in the deferred-group might put other volunteers off joining the study. In free-text responses, data collection tools were the most frequently reported least liked aspect of the study. A fifth of deferred participants reported 'being deferred' as the thing they least liked about the study. However, more deferred participants disliked the data collection tools than the fact that they had to wait a year to access PrEP. Participants in the IDIs had a good understanding of the rationale for the open-label wait-listed study design. Most accepted the design but acknowledged they were, or would have been, disappointed to be randomised to the deferred group. Five of the 25 participants interviewed reported some objection to the wait-listed design. CONCLUSION:The quantitative and qualitative findings suggest that in an environment where PrEP was not available, the rationale for the wait-listed trial design was well understood and generally acceptable to most participants in this study.

OBJECTIVES:European guidelines recommend HIV testing for individuals presenting with indicator conditions (ICs) including AIDS-defining conditions (ADCs). The extent to which non-HIV specialty guidelines recommend HIV testing in ICs and ADCs is unknown. Our aim was to pilot a methodology in the UK to review specialty guidelines and ascertain if HIV was discussed and testing recommended. METHODS:UK and European HIV testing guidelines were reviewed to produce a list of 25 ADCs and 49 ICs. UK guidelines for these conditions were identified from searches of the websites of specialist societies, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) website, the NICE Clinical Knowledge Summaries (CKS) website, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidance Network (SIGN) website and the British Medical Journal Best Practice database and from Google searches. RESULTS:We identified guidelines for 12 of 25 ADCs (48%) and 36 of 49 (73%) ICs. In total, 78 guidelines were reviewed (range 0-13 per condition). HIV testing was recommended in six of 17 ADC guidelines (35%) and 24 of 61 IC guidelines (39%). At least one guideline recommended HIV testing for six of 25 ADCs (24%) and 16 of 49 ICs (33%). There was no association between recommendation to test and publication year (P = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS:The majority of guidelines for ICs do not recommend testing. Clinicians managing ICs may be unaware of recommendations produced by HIV societies or the prevalence of undiagnosed HIV infection among these patients. We are piloting methods to engage with guideline development groups to ensure that patients diagnosed with ICs/ADCs are tested for HIV. We then plan to apply our methodology in other European settings as part of the Optimising Testing and Linkage to Care for HIV across Europe (OptTEST) project.

OBJECTIVES:Levels of undiagnosed HIV infection and late presentation remain high globally despite attempts to increase testing. The objective of this study was to evaluate a risk-based prototype application to prompt HIV testing when patients undergo routine blood tests. METHODS:Two computer physician order entry (CPOE) systems were modified using the application to prompt health care workers (HCWs) to add an HIV test when other tests selected suggested that the patient was at higher risk of HIV infection. The application was applied for a 3-month period in two areas, in a large London hospital and in general practices in Teesside/North Yorkshire. At the end of the evaluation period, HCWs were interviewed to assess the usability and acceptability of the prompt. Numbers of HIV tests ordered in the general practice areas were also compared before and after the prompt's introduction. RESULTS:The system was found to be both useable and generally acceptable to hospital doctors, general practitioners and nurse practitioners, with little evidence of prompt/alert fatigue. The issue of the prompt appearing late in the patient consultation did lead to some difficulties, particularly around discussion of the test and consent. In the general practices, around 1 in 10 prompts were accepted and there was a 6% increase in testing rates over the 3-month study period (P = 0.169). CONCLUSIONS:Using a CPOE-based clinical decision support application to prompt HIV testing appears both feasible and acceptable to HCWs. Refining the application to provide more accurate risk stratification is likely to make it more effective.

ObjectivesRoutine HIV testing in nonspecialist settings has been shown to be acceptable to patients and staff in pilot studies. The question of how to embed routine HIV testing, and make it sustainable, remains to be answered.MethodsWe established a service of routine HIV testing in an emergency department (ED) in London, delivered by ED staff as part of routine clinical care. All patients aged 16 to 65 years were offered an HIV test (latterly the upper age limit was removed). Meetings were held weekly and two outcome measures examined: test offer rate (coverage) and test uptake. Sustainability methodology (process mapping; plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles) was applied to maximize these outcome measures.ResultsOver 30 months, 44582 eligible patients attended the ED. The mean proportion offered an HIV test was 14%, varying from 6% to 54% per month over the testing period. The mean proportion accepting a test was 63% (range 33-100%). A total of 4327 HIV tests have been performed. Thirteen patients have been diagnosed with HIV infection (0.30%). PDSA cycles having the most positive and sustained effects on the outcome measures include the expansion to offer blood-based HIV tests in addition to the original oral fluid tests, and the engagement of ED nursing staff in the programme.ConclusionsHIV testing can be delivered in the ED, but constant innovation and attention have been required to maintain it over 30 months. Patient uptake remains high, suggesting acceptability, but time will be required before true embedding in routine clinical practice is achieved.