HIV Prevalence and the HIV Treatment Cascade Among Female Sex Workers in Cross-Border Areas in East Africa.

In cross-border areas of East Africa, sexual networks include partnerships across resident, migrant, and mobile populations, and risky behaviors can coincide with fragmented health services given the challenges of cross-border coordination. Among those most at risk are female sex workers (FSWs). We map HIV prevalence among FSWs in 14 cross-border areas, estimate associations between FSW characteristics and HIV and undiagnosed HIV, and estimate progress towards the UNAIDS 90-90-90 targets. The 2016-2017 East Africa Cross-Border Integrated Health Study recruited 4040 women; 786 were classified as FSWs. Overall HIV prevalence among FSWs was 10.8% (95% CI 8.2%, 13.3%), though area-specific estimates varied considerably. Among FSWs living with HIV, 46.1% (95% CI 33.2%, 59.0%) knew their status, 80.6% (95% CI 66.3%, 94.9%) of FSWs who knew their status were on ART, and 84.8% (95% CI 66.1%, 100.0%) of FSWs on ART were virally suppressed. Results indicate a need for expanded HIV testing.

Access to HIV prevention services in East African cross-border areas: a 2016-2017 cross-sectional bio-behavioural study.

INTRODUCTION: East African cross-border areas are visited by mobile and vulnerable populations, such as men, female sex workers, men who have sex with men, truck drivers, fisher folks and young women. These groups may not benefit from traditional HIV prevention interventions available at the health facilities where they live, but may benefit from services offered at public venues identified as places where people meet new sexual partners (e.g. bars, nightclubs, transportation hubs and guest houses). The goal of this analysis was to estimate availability, access and uptake of prevention services by populations who visit these venues. METHODS: We collected cross-sectional data using the Priorities for Local AIDS Control Efforts sampling method at cross-border locations near or along the land and lake borders of Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda from June 2016-February 2017. This bio-behavioural survey captured information from a probability sample of 11,428 individuals at 833 venues across all areas. Data were weighted using survey sampling weights and analysed using methods to account for the complex sampling design. RESULTS: Among the 85.6% of persons who had access to condoms, 60.5% did not use a condom at their last anal or vaginal sexual encounter. Venues visited by high percentages of persons living with HIV were not more likely than other venues to offer condoms. In 12 of the 22 cross-border areas, male or female condoms were available at less than 33% of the venues visited by persons having difficulty accessing condoms. In 17 of the 22 cross-border areas, education outreach visits in the preceding six months occurred at less than 50% of the venues where participants had low effective use of condoms. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals visiting venues in cross-border areas report poor access to and low effective use of condoms and other prevention services. Availability of HIV prevention services differed by venue and population type and cross-border area, suggesting opportunities for more granular targeting of HIV prevention interventions and transnational coordination of HIV programming.

Improving HIV outreach testing yield at cross-border venues in East Africa.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate HIV testing yield under several candidate strategies for outreach testing at venues (i.e. places where people socialize and meet new sex partners) in East Africa cross-border areas. DESIGN: Population-based cross-sectional biobehavioural survey of people who had not been previously diagnosed with HIV found in venues. METHODS: We identified participants who would have been tested for HIV under each of 10 hypothetical outreach testing strategies and calculated the proportion who would have newly tested positive for HIV under each strategy. On the basis of this proportion, we calculated the 'number needed to test' (NNT) to identify one new case of HIV under each strategy. All estimates were obtained by applying survey sampling weights to account for the complex sampling design. RESULTS: If testing was performed at a random sample of venues, 35 people would need to be tested to identify one new case of HIV, but higher yield could be found by limiting testing to venues with specific characteristics. Strategies focusing on women had higher testing yield. Testing women employed by venues would result in highest yield of all strategies examined (NNT = 15), while testing men under age 24 would result in the lowest yield (NNT = 99). CONCLUSION: Quantitatively evaluating HIV testing strategies prior to implementation using survey data presents a new opportunity to refine and prioritize outreach testing strategies for the people and places most likely to result in high HIV testing yield.

The HIV care continuum among resident and non-resident populations found in venues in East Africa cross-border areas.

INTRODUCTION: HIV care and treatment in cross-border areas in East Africa face challenges perhaps not seen to the same extent in other geographic areas, particularly for mobile and migrant populations. Here, we estimate the proportion of people with HIV found in these cross-border areas in each stage of the HIV care and treatment cascade, including the proportion who knows their status, the proportion on treatment and the proportion virally suppressed. METHODS: Participants (n = 11,410) working or socializing in public places in selected East Africa cross border areas were recruited between June 2016 and February 2017 using the Priorities for Local AIDS Control Efforts method and administered a behavioural survey and rapid HIV test. This approach was designed to recruit a stratified random sample of people found in public spaces or venues in each cross border area. For participants testing positive for HIV, viral load was measured from dried blood spots. The proportion in each step of the cascade was estimated using inverse probability weights to account for the sampling design and informative HIV test refusals. Estimates are reported separately for residents of the cross border areas and non-residents found in those areas. RESULTS: Overall, 43% of participants with HIV found in cross-border areas knew their status, 87% of those participants were on antiretroviral therapy (ART), and 80% of participants on ART were virally suppressed. About 20% of people with HIV found in cross border areas were sampled outside their subdistrict or subcounty of residence. While both resident and non-resident individuals who knew their status were likely to be on ART (85% and 96% respectively), people on ART recruited outside their area of residence were less likely to be suppressed (64% suppressed; 95% CI: 43, 81) compared to residents (84% suppressed; 95% CI: 75, 93). CONCLUSIONS: People living in or travelling through cross-border areas may face barriers in learning their HIV status. Moreover, while non-residents were more likely to be on treatment than residents, they were less likely to be suppressed, suggesting gaps in continuity of care for people in East Africa travelling outside their area of residence despite timely initiation of treatment.

Changes in public health preparedness services provided to local health departments by regional offices in North Carolina: a comparison of two cross-sectional studies.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, seven decentralized Public Health Regional Surveillance Teams (PHRSTs) were restructured into four centralized Public Health Preparedness and Response (PHP&R) regional offices to realign preparedness priorities and essential services with appropriate infrastructure; field-based staff was reduced, saving approximately $1 million. The objective of this study was to understand the impact that restructuring had on services provided to local health departments (LHDs) throughout North Carolina. METHODS: A survey to document services that regional offices provide to LHDs in North Carolina was administered by the North Carolina Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Center in 2013. The results were compared to a similar survey from 2009, which identified services provided by regional teams prior to restructuring. RESULTS: Of 69 types of assistance, 14 (20%) were received by 50% or more LHDs in 2012. Compared to 2009, there was a significant decrease in the proportion of LHDs receiving 67% (n = 47) of services. The size of the region served by regional offices was shown to inversely impact the proportion of LHDs receiving services for 25% of services. There was a slight significant decline in perceived quality of the services provided by regional teams in 2012 as comparison to 2009. CONCLUSIONS: Following a system-wide review of preparedness in North Carolina, the state's regional teams were reorganized to refine their focus to planning, exercises, and training. Some services, most notably under the functions of epidemiology and surveillance and public health event response, are now provided by other state offices. However, the study results indicate that several services that are still under the domain of the regional offices were received by fewer LHDs in 2012 than 2009. This decrease may be due to the larger number of counties now served by the four regional offices.

Comparing types of local public health agencies in North Carolina.

CONTEXT: Some states are considering restructuring local public health agencies (LPHAs) in hopes of achieving long-term efficiencies. North Carolina's experience operating different types of LPHAs, such as county health departments, district health departments, public health authorities, and consolidated human services agencies, can provide valuable information to policy makers in other states who are examining how best to organize their local public health system. OBJECTIVE: To identify stakeholders' perceptions of the benefits and challenges associated with different types of LPHAs in North Carolina and to compare LPHA types on selected financial, workforce, and service delivery measures. DESIGN: Focus groups and key informant interviews were conducted to identify stakeholders' perceptions of different LPHA types. To compare LPHA types on finance, workforce, and service delivery measures, descriptive statistical analyses were performed on publicly available quantitative data. SETTING: North Carolina. PARTICIPANTS: Current and former state and local public health practitioners, county commissioners, county managers, assistant managers, state legislators, and others. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: In addition to identifying stakeholders' perceptions of LPHA types, proportion of total expenditures by funding source, expenditures per capita by funding source, full-time equivalents per 1000 population, and percentage of 127 tracked services offered were calculated. RESULTS: Stakeholders reported benefits and challenges of all LPHA types. LPHA types differ with regard to source of funding, with county health departments and consolidated human services agencies receiving a greater percentage of their funding from county appropriations than districts and authorities, which receive a comparatively larger percentage from other revenues. CONCLUSION: Types of LPHAs are not entirely distinct from one another, and LPHAs of the same type can vary greatly from one another. However, stakeholders noted differences between LPHA types-particularly with regard to district health departments-that were corroborated by an examination of expenditures per capita and full-time equivalents per 1000 population.

Assessing the roles of brokerage: an evaluation of a hospital-based Public Health epidemiologist program in North Carolina.

CONTEXT: The North Carolina Division of Public Health established an innovative program in 2003 that placed public health epidemiologists (PHEs) in hospitals around the state to improve communication between hospitals and local public health departments (LHDs) and bolster public health surveillance and response. OBJECTIVE: To use social network analysis to assess how the hospital-based PHE program in North Carolina facilitates the exchange of public health surveillance information. DESIGN: Using a Gould-Fernandez brokerage analysis, this study examines communication among organizational actors and their dependence on third parties to broker information and knowledge. PARTICIPANTS: Survey and interview data were collected to identify the interorganizational network among 220 organizational actors and their public health surveillance-related activities, including 11 PHEs, 100 county-level offices of North Carolina's 85 LHDs, and 109 hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Social network analysis is used to calculate the frequency with which an actor serves as an intermediary in each of the 5 brokerage roles as well as total brokerage equal to the sum of the number of times an actor occupies each role. RESULTS: Results identify a frequent tendency for PHEs to serve as an intermediary between LHDs and hospitals. Interactions between these entities are frequently facilitated by PHEs, with a high measure of degree centrality by LHDs and a low frequency of brokerage among hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Results validate PHEs' mission to enhance communication between LHDs and hospitals around communicable disease surveillance, reporting, and management.

Linking public health agencies and hospitals for improved emergency preparedness: North Carolina's public health epidemiologist program.

BACKGROUND: In 2003, 11 public health epidemiologists were placed in North Carolina's largest hospitals to enhance communication between public health agencies and healthcare systems for improved emergency preparedness. We describe the specific services public health epidemiologists provide to local health departments, the North Carolina Division of Public Health, and the hospitals in which they are based, and assess the value of these services to stakeholders. METHODS: We surveyed and/or interviewed public health epidemiologists, communicable disease nurses based at local health departments, North Carolina Division of Public Health staff, and public health epidemiologists' hospital supervisors to 1) elicit the services provided by public health epidemiologists in daily practice and during emergencies and 2) examine the value of these services. Interviews were transcribed and imported into ATLAS.ti for coding and analysis. Descriptive analyses were performed on quantitative survey data. RESULTS: Public health epidemiologists conduct syndromic surveillance of community-acquired infections and potential bioterrorism events, assist local health departments and the North Carolina Division of Public Health with public health investigations, educate clinicians on diseases of public health importance, and enhance communication between hospitals and public health agencies. Stakeholders place on a high value on the unique services provided by public health epidemiologists. CONCLUSIONS: Public health epidemiologists effectively link public health agencies and hospitals to enhance syndromic surveillance, communicable disease management, and public health emergency preparedness and response. This comprehensive description of the program and its value to stakeholders, both in routine daily practice and in responding to a major public health emergency, can inform other states that may wish to establish a similar program as part of their larger public health emergency preparedness and response system.

Legal frameworks supporting public health department accreditation: lessons learned from 10 states.

CONTEXT: The existence of different types of accreditation legal frameworks, embedded in complex and varying state legal infrastructures and political environments, raises important legal implications for the national voluntary accreditation program. OBJECTIVE: To increase an understanding of accreditation-enabling laws nationwide. DESIGN: In 2010 to 2011, the North Carolina Institute for Public Health conducted a study of state legal frameworks supporting public health department accreditation or related programs (ie, certification/assessment, performance management, and quality improvement). First, a mapping study was conducted to identify current programs and their legal frameworks. Ten states were then selected for in-depth qualitative case study. Data were gathered through semistructured interviews with public health practitioners and key stakeholders. RESULTS: The findings from the mapping study delineate the accreditation, certification/assessment, performance management, or quality improvement program currently in place and the type of legal framework supporting it. The citations for statutes and regulations are also included. Among the 18 states in the sample, 4 have accreditation programs, 6 have certification/assessment programs, and 8 have performance management/quality improvement programs. Accreditation programs were most likely to have a statutory basis, while performance management and quality improvement programs were most often supported via health department policy. The findings from the case study provide greater detail about each state, reflecting public health structures, programs, legal frameworks, approaches to Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) accreditation, and legal strategies for achieving accreditation. CONCLUSIONS: Early adopter states have pursued a variety of legal frameworks to develop their accreditation, certification/assessment, performance management, and quality improvement programs. With the voluntary national accreditation program scheduled to go live in late 2011, these 10 states have also carefully considered options for aligning their activities with PHAB accreditation. Lessons derived from this examination can inform public health practitioners, advocates, and elected officials about how to best structure legal frameworks to support accreditation and related activities.

Regional public health preparedness teams in North Carolina: an analysis of their structural capacity and impact on services provided.

In December 2001, the North Carolina Division of Public Health established Public Health Regional Surveillance Teams (PHRSTs) to build local public health capacity to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from public health incidents and events. Seven PHRSTs are colocated at local health departments (LHDs) around the state. The authors assessed structural capacity of the PHRSTs and analyzed the relationship between structural capacity and the frequency of support and services provided to LHDs by PHRSTs. Five categories of structural capacity were measured: human, fiscal, informational, physical, and organizational resources. In addition, variation in structural capacity among teams was also examined. The most variation was seen in human resources. Although each team was originally designed to include a physician/epidemiologist, industrial hygienist, nurse/epidemiologist, and administrative support technician, team composition varied such that only the administrative support technician is common to all teams. Variation in team composition was associated with differences in the support and services that PHRSTs provide to LHDs. Teams that reported having a medical doctor or a doctor of osteopathic medicine (chi2 = 9.95; p < 0.01) or an epidemiologist (chi2 = 5.35; p < 0.02) had larger budgets and provided more support and services, and teams that housed a pharmacist reported more partners (chi2 = 52.34; p < 0.01). Teams that received directives from more groups (such as LHDs) also provided more support and services in planning (Z = 21.71; p < 0.01), communication and liaison (Z = 12.11; p < 0.01), epidemiology and surveillance (Z = 5.09; p < 0.01), consultation and technical support (Z = 2.25; p = 0.02), H1N1 outbreak assistance (Z = 10.25; p < 0.01), and public health event response (Z = 2.19; p = 0.03). In the last 10 years, significant variation in structural capacity, particularly in human resources, has been introduced among PHRSTs. These differences explain much of the variation in support and services provided to LHDs by PHRSTs.

Lessons learned from North Carolina public health regional surveillance teams' regional exercises.

All-hazards exercises bring together emergency response partners at the local, regional, state, and federal levels for the primary purposes of testing response plans, defining roles and responsibilities, assessing capabilities, and making necessary improvements prior to an actual incident. To better understand the benefits and challenges of conducting regional (ie, multicounty) exercises, a study was carried out by the North Carolina Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Center at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health. This article describes 5 all-hazards regional exercises conducted by Public Health Regional Surveillance Teams (PHRSTs) in North Carolina in 2009 and highlights 4 unique benefits that resulted from the exercises beyond meeting explicit objectives to test plans and identify areas for improvement: (1) building relationships among response partners, (2) promoting public health assets, (3) testing multiple communications systems, and (4) training exercise evaluators. Challenges of planning and conducting regional exercises also are addressed, followed by recommendations for maximizing the effectiveness of regional public health exercises.

Support and services provided by public health regional surveillance teams to Local Health Departments in North Carolina.

Since 2001, many states have created regional structures in an effort to better coordinate/public health preparedness and response efforts, consolidate services, and supplement local government capacity. While several studies have identified specific benefits to regionalization, including enhanced networking, coordination, and communication, little research has examined the effect of regionalization on specific preparedness and response activities. To better understand the impact of regionalizing public health workforce assets in North Carolina, a survey aimed at documenting specific support and services that Public Health Regional Surveillance Teams(PHRSTs) provide to local health departments (LHDs) was developed and administered by the North Carolina Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Center, located at the North Carolina Institute for Public Health. Of80 potential types of assistance, 26 (33%) were received by 75% or more LHDs, including 9 related to communication and 7 related to exercises. There was significant variation by PHRST region in both the quantity and quality of support and services reported by LHDs. This variation could not be explained by county- or LHD-level variables. PHRST assistance to LHDs is largely focused on communication and liaison activities, regional exercises, and planning. On the basis of these findings, regionalization may provide North Carolina with benefits consistent with those found in other studies such as improved networking and coordination. However, further research is needed to identify whether regional variation is the result of varying capacity or priorities of the PHRSTs or LHDs and to determine how much variation is acceptable.

10 Guiding principles of a comprehensive Internet-based public health preparedness training and education program.

Distance learning is an effective strategy to address the many barriers to continuing education faced by the public health workforce. With the proliferation of online learning programs focused on public health, there is a need to develop and adopt a common set of principles and practices for distance learning. In this article, we discuss the 10 principles that guide the development, design, and delivery of the various training modules and courses offered by the North Carolina Center for Public Health Preparedness (NCCPHP). These principles are the result of 10 years of experience in Internet-based public health preparedness educational programming. In this article, we focus on three representative components of NCCPHP's overall training and education program to illustrate how the principles are implemented and help others in the field plan and develop similar programs.