Do No Harm: A Review of Social Harms Associated with HIV Partner Notification.

INTRODUCTION: HIV partner notification services (PNS) are highly effective in identifying people living with HIV, but the complex risks and repercussions associated with HIV testing and disclosure must be examined. The benefits of assisting people to learn their HIV status and link with treatment or prevention based on their results must be considered alongside the risks of adverse events or social harms. METHODS: The study team systematically searched the PubMed, EBSCO, and Web of Science electronic databases (2015-2021), as well as abstracts from the International AIDS Society Conference (2016-2020) and the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (2015-2020). Fifteen studies and 1 conference abstract met the inclusion criteria for this narrative review. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Incidence of social harms across studies ranged from 0%-6.3%, with the higher range occurring among women with a previous history of intimate partner violence (IPV). The majority of the studies (69%) reported that less than or equal to 1% of participants experienced social harms as a result of PNS. Social harms included relationship dissolution, IPV, and loss of financial support. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from a limited set of studies suggests that although social harms associated with HIV partner notification do occur, they are rare. Considering the rapid global scale-up of PNS, additional research and oversight are needed to provide countries with recommended minimum standards to support providers, clients, and their partners with safe partner notification.

Antenatal Corticosteroids for Women at Risk of Imminent Preterm Birth in 7 sub-Saharan African Countries: A Policy and Implementation Landscape Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Every year approximately 15 million babies are born prematurely and nearly 1 million die due to preterm birth complications. Evidence shows that antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) can be used to improve preterm birth outcomes in particular clinical settings. We conducted a policy and implementation landscape analysis of ACS use for women at risk of imminent preterm birth in 7 low-income countries. METHODS: A study framework and situation analysis tool were developed based on the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation for ACS use among women at risk of preterm birth. The study was conducted in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Malawi, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, and Uganda. Primary data were collected through key informant interviews. Secondary data were gathered from publicly available sources, a survey of health management information system indicators, and demographic data from the Every Preemie-SCALE country profiles for preterm and low birth weight prevention and care. RESULTS: All 7 countries are using ACS for women at risk of imminent preterm birth. The majority of countries include language on ACS use in clinical protocols or standard treatment guidelines; however, none include language on accurately measuring gestational age. For 2 of the 5 countries with national standards for ACS use, the upper gestational age limit for ACS use exceeded the WHO recommendation of 34 weeks. There are gaps in national guidance on how to determine if a woman is at risk of imminent preterm birth. Few countries include guidance that indicates ACS is contraindicated in the presence of infection. The majority of countries reported that facilities providing ACS meet comprehensive emergency obstetric and newborn care standards, and all countries reported the availability of some form of special newborn care or neonatal intensive care units at facilities providing ACS. CONCLUSIONS: Countries recognize challenges to access to high-quality maternal and newborn care that fulfill clinical care preconditions required for safe and effective ACS use. Key informants recommended support for clinical guidelines and provider training on ACS use, inclusion of obstetric indications for dexamethasone and betamethasone in national essential medicine lists, collecting and using ACS-related data, and improving the quality of maternal and newborn care, including specialized newborn care.

Alternative HIV testing methods among populations at high risk for HIV infection.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the levels of awareness and use of alternative HIV tests (home collection kit, oral mucosal transudate collection kit, and rapid tests) among people at high risk for HIV infection. METHODS: Data were collected as part of an anonymous, cross-sectional interview study--the HIV Testing Survey (HITS)--conducted in seven states from September 2000 to February 2001. Three high-risk populations were recruited: men who have sex with men, injection drug users, and high-risk heterosexuals. Respondents were asked about their awareness and use of alternative HIV tests. RESULTS: The overall awareness and use of the alternative tests was limited: 54% of respondents were aware of the home collection kit, 42% were aware of the oral mucosal transudate collection kit test, and 13% were aware of rapid tests. Among those aware of alternative tests, self-reported use of the tests was also low. The most common reasons given for not using alternative HIV tests were: preference for the standard test; concern that the results could be less accurate; and that alternative tests were not offered. CONCLUSIONS: The low levels of awareness and use of alternative HIV tests suggest that the potential for promoting testing among individuals at high risk for HIV by encouraging use of alternative HIV tests has not been fully realized. Alternative tests should be made more broadly available and should be accompanied by education about these tests for physicians and people at risk. Educational efforts should be evaluated to determine if promoting alternative HIV tests increases the numbers of people at risk for HIV who are tested.