A qualitative study on the voluntariness of counselling and testing for HIV amongst antenatal clinic attendees: do women have a choice?

BACKGROUND: Mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of the Human Immunodeficiency -Virus (HIV) is a serious public health problem, contributing up to 90% of childhood HIV infections. In Tanzania, the prevention-of-mother-to-child-transmission (PMTCT) feature of the HIV programme was rolled out in 2000. The components of PMTCT include counselling and HIV testing directed at antenatal clinic attendees. It is through the process of Provider Initiated Counseling and Testing (PITC) that counselling is offered participant confidentiality and voluntariness are upheld and valid consent obtained. The objective of the study was to explore antenatal clinic attendees' experiences of the concept of voluntariness vis- a- vis the implementation of prior counseling and subsequent testing for HIV under the PITC as part of their antenatal care. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted with17 antenatal clinic attendees and 6 nursing officers working at the Muhimbili National Hospital (MNH) antenatal clinic. The study data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Antenatal clinic attendees' accounts suggested that counselling and testing for HIV during pregnancy was voluntary, and that knowledge of their HIV status led them to access appropriate treatment for both mother and her newborn baby. They reported feeling no pressure from nursing officers, and gave verbal consent to undergo the HIV test. However, some antenatal clinic attendees reported pressure from their partners to test for HIV. Healthcare providers were thus faced with a dilemma of disclosure/ nondisclosure when dealing with discordant couples. CONCLUSION: Antenatal clinic attendees at MNH undertook the PITC for HIV voluntarily. This was enhanced by their prior knowledge of HIV, the need to prevent mother- to- child transmission of HIV, and the effectiveness of the voluntary policy implemented by nursing officers.

Ethical issues surrounding the provider initiated opt--Out prenatal HIV screening practice in Sub-Saharan Africa: a literature review.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of mother to child transmission of HIV remains a key public health priority in most developing countries. The provider Initiated Opt - Out Prenatal HIV Screening Approach, recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) lately has been adopted and translated into policy in most Sub - Saharan African countries. To better ascertain the ethical reasons for or against the use of this approach, we carried out a literature review of the ethics literature. METHODS: Papers published in English and French Languages between 1990 and 2015 from the following data bases were searched: Pubmed, Cochrane literature, Embase, Cinhal, Web of Science and Google Scholar. After screening from 302 identified relevant articles, 21 articles were retained for the critical review. DISCUSSION: Most authors considered this approach ethically justifiable due to its potential benefits to the mother, foetus and society (Beneficence). The breaching of respect for autonomy was considered acceptable on the grounds of libertarian paternalism. Most authors considered the Opt - Out approach to be less stigmatizing than the Opt - In. The main arguments against the Opt - Out approach were: non respect of patient autonomy, informed consent becoming a meaningless concept and the HIV test becoming compulsory, risk of losing trust in health care providers, neglect of social and psychological implications of doing an HIV test, risk of aggravation of stigma if all tested patients are not properly cared for and neglect of sociocultural peculiarities. CONCLUSIONS: The Opt - Out approach could be counterproductive in case gender sensitive issues within the various sociocultural representations are neglected, and actions to offer holistic care to all women who shall potentially test positive for HIV were not effectively ascertained. The Provider Initiated Opt - Out Prenatal HIV Screening option remains ethically acceptable, but deserves caution, active monitoring and evaluation within the translation of this approach into to practice.

Restricting access to HIV-related services: A bad public health and economic policy / Restricción del acceso a los servicios relacionados con el VIH: una mala Política Económica y de Salud Pública

No disponible

[Expansion of HIV counseling and testing strategies: technical challenges and ethical-political tensions]. / Ampliación de las estrategias de consejería y prueba del VIH: desafíos técnicos y tensiones ético-políticas.

Incentives to provide universal access to antiretroviral therapy in order to control the HIV/AIDS epidemic also encouraged the diversification of HIV testing strategies, as demonstrated by the simultaneous existence of Voluntary Counseling and Testing (VCT) and Provider-Initiated HIV Testing and Counseling (PITC). This paper analyzes the concepts, principles and implementation of the VCT and PITC models regarding counseling, confidentiality and informed consent in Brazil and other countries, based on a literature review of works in the Lilacs, Medline, Sociological Abstracts and Cochrane databases published between 2000 and 2013. According to the literature, PITC increases rates of testing in comparison with VCT, but reduces sexual and reproductive rights and the autonomy of users. These findings suggest technical challenges and ethical tensions between the paradigm of exceptionalism and the normalization of HIV testing. The necessity to reconcile increased access to HIV tests with the local capacity to offer comprehensive care for people living with HIV/AIDS is highlighted. It is recommended that interdisciplinary studies about the social effects of VCT and PITC be amplified.

Perspectives on the ethical concerns and justifications of the 2006 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention HIV testing: HIV screening policy changes.

BACKGROUND: The 2006 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revised recommendations for HIV testing in clinical settings contained seven specific changes to how health care facilities should provide HIV testing. These seven elements have been both supported and challenged in the lay and medical literature. Our first paper in BMC Medical Ethics presented an analysis of the three HIV testing procedural changes included in the recommendations. In this paper, we address the four remaining elements that concern HIV screening policy changes: (1) nontargeted HIV screening, (2) making HIV screening similar to screening for other treatable conditions, (3) increasing HIV screening without assured additional funding for linkage to care, and (4) making patients bear the costs of increased HIV screening in health care settings. METHODS: We interviewed 25 members from the fields of US HIV advocacy, care, policy, and research about the ethical merits and demerits of the four changes to HIV screening policies. We performed a qualitative analysis of the participant responses in the interviews and summarized the major themes. RESULTS: Participants commented that nontargeted HIV screening and making HIV screening similar to screening for other treatable medical conditions was ethical when it broadened the scope of people being tested for HIV. However, they believed it was unethical when it did not respect the exceptional nature of HIV and HIV testing. Some participants favored more testing regardless if there was assured additional funding for linkage to care or if patients might bear the costs of testing because they believed that merely alerting patients of their status was beneficial and would lead to positive consequences. Other participants found ethical flaws with testing without assured linkage to care and patients bearing the costs of testing, as this could discriminate against those who could not pay. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that there are fundamental ethical disagreements that shape views on CDC's recommended HIV testing policies. Differences remain on whether or not HIV remains an exceptional condition that requires it to be treated differently than other treatable conditions. Disagreement also exists on the responsibilities of health care providers and rights of patients in regards to screening in (1) the absence of assured linkage to care after an HIV diagnosis and (2) paying for the costs of HIV screening. Resolution of these disagreements is needed to serve the common goal of using testing to facilitate medical care for those who are HIV infected and for reducing HIV transmission.

Total control: a critical analysis of mandatory HIV testing in U.S. prisons.

The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between mandatory HIV testing and the institutional management of inmates in U.S. prisons. Mandatory HIV testing has been largely overlooked by the nursing community even though it has important human rights and ethical implications. Drawing on the work of Goffman (1990) on the inner workings of total institutions, the present article critically examines the deployment of mandatory HIV testing in U.S. prisons. To set the stage, we define mandatory HIV testing and describe the methods of HIV testing currently used in U.S. prison settings. Then, we provide a brief overview of the concept of total institution and the mortification process. Finally, we expand on the relationship between mandatory HIV testing and much larger institutional objectives of total control, total structuring, total isolation, and separation of inmates from society (as summarized by Farrington, 1992). And lastly, we provide a brief discussion on the implications of mandatory HIV testing (as a method of HIV testing) from a nursing perspective.

An ethical analysis of opt-out HIV screening for pregnant women.

Critical advances in prevention of mother-to-child-transmission (MTCT) of the HIV in the perinatal period have changed practice recommendations for HIV screening for pregnant women. Using case studies we illustrate the ethical complexities and implications of opt-out HIV testing for pregnant women. Despite the potential for compromised informed consent, an opt-out HIV screening approach is ethically defensible.

An HIV testing conundrum: balancing the health and privacy considerations of multiple stakeholders.

Legal standards for HIV testing are evolving in an attempt to achieve an ethical equilibrium between the privacy rights of infected or potentially infected individuals and public health considerations that seek to limit the spread and severity of the disease through early recognition and treatment. Although guided by US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations, these standards are determined by state law. In this case, an ethical dilemma is presented and discussed in which the privacy interests of an HIV-infected individual come into conflict with the health considerations of an inadvertently exposed neurology resident and her unborn child, a conundrum amplified by the restricted HIV testing laws of the state in which the incident took place.

Patient and clinician ethical perspectives on the 2006 Centers for Disease Control and prevention HIV testing methods.

OBJECTIVES: CDC 2006 recommendations for new HIV testing methods in U.S. health-care settings (opt-out approach, general medical consent, and optional prevention counseling) have been the subject of a public ethical debate. Ethical concerns might limit their implementation and affect expanded HIV screening efforts. We compared clinicians' and patients' perspectives on the ethical concerns raised about, justifications provided in support of, and preferences for the 2006 CDC-recommended HIV testing methods for the U.S. health-care setting, in contrast with the 2001 CDC-recommended HIV testing methods (opt-in approach, specific written consent, and mandatory prevention counseling). METHODS: We conducted a non-inferiority trial and survey of 249 clinicians and random samples of 1,013 of their patients at three emergency departments and three ambulatory care clinics at university-affiliated hospitals in Rhode Island from June to December 2007. RESULTS: Clinicians found the 2006 CDC HIV testing methods to be more ethically concerning than the 2001 testing methods (i.e., ethically inferior), while patients had few ethical concerns. In regard to ethical justifications cited for the 2006 CDC HIV testing methods, clinicians were more supportive of the ethical justifications cited for using an opt-out approach and general medical consent, while patients were more supportive of the justifications for optional HIV prevention counseling. Clinicians showed a relatively greater preference for the opt-out approach and use of general medical consent, while patients had a relatively greater preference for optional HIV prevention counseling. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and their patients hold divergent ethical perspectives on CDC's 2006 HIV testing methods. The results indicate an opportunity to review not only these but also future HIV testing recommendations, as well as how they are presented for implementation.

Perspectives on the ethical concerns and justifications of the 2006 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention HIV testing recommendations.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended three changes to HIV testing methods in US healthcare settings: (1) an opt-out approach, (2) removal of separate signed consent, and (3) optional HIV prevention counseling. These recommendations led to a public debate about their moral acceptability. METHODS: We interviewed 25 members from the fields of US HIV advocacy, care, policy, and research about the ethical merits and demerits of the three changes to HIV testing methods. We performed a qualitative analysis of the participant responses in the interviews and summarized the major themes. RESULTS: In general, arguments in favor of the methods were based upon their ultimate contribution to increasing HIV testing and permitting the consequent benefits of identifying those who are HIV infected and linking them to further care. CONCLUSIONS: The prevailing theme of ethical concern focused on suspicions that the methods might not be properly implemented, and that further safeguards might be needed.

HIV testing of pregnant women: an ethical analysis.

Recent global advances in available technology to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission necessitate a rethinking of contemporary and previous ethical debates on HIV testing as a means to preventing vertical transmission. In this paper, we will provide an ethical analysis of HIV-testing strategies of pregnant women. First, we argue that provider-initiated opt-out HIV testing seems to be the most effective HIV test strategy. The flip-side of an opt-out strategy is that it may end up as involuntary testing in a clinical setting. We analyse this ethical puzzle from a novel perspective, taking into account the moral importance of certain hypothetical preferences of the child, as well as the moral importance of certain actual preferences of the mother. Finally, we balance the conflicting concerns and try to arrive at an ethically sound solution to this dilemma. Our aim is to introduce a novel perspective from which to analyse testing strategies, and to explore the implications and possible benefits of our proposal. The conclusion from our analysis is that policies that recommend provider-initiated opt-out HIV testing of pregnant mothers, with a risk of becoming involuntary testing in a clinical setting, are acceptable. The rationale behind this is that the increased availability of very effective and inexpensive life-saving drugs makes the ethical problems raised by the possible intrusiveness of HIV testing less important than the child's hypothetical preferences to be born healthy. Health care providers, therefore, have a duty to offer both opt-out HIV testing and available PMTCT (preventing mother-to-child transmission) interventions.

Ethical, financial, and legal considerations to implementing emergency department HIV screening: a report from the 2007 conference of the National Emergency Department HIV Testing Consortium.

OBJECTIVES: We seek to identify and analyze, from a group of participants experienced with HIV screening, the perceived challenges and solutions to the ethical, financial, and legal considerations of emergency department (ED)-based HIV screening. METHODS: We performed a qualitative analysis of the focus group discussions from the ethical, financial, and legal considerations portion of the inaugural National Emergency Department HIV Testing Consortium conference. Four groups composed of 20 to 25 consortium participants engaged in semistructured, facilitated focus group discussions. The focus group discussions were audiotaped and transcribed. A primary reader identified major themes and subthemes and representative quotes from the transcripts and summarized the discussions. Secondary and tertiary readers reviewed the themes, subthemes, and summaries for accuracy. RESULTS: The focus group discussions centered on the following themes. Ethical considerations included appropriateness of HIV screening in the ED and ethics of key elements of the 2006 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention HIV testing recommendations. Financial considerations included models of payment and support, role of health care insurance, financial ethics and downstream financial burdens, and advocacy approaches. Legal considerations included the adequacy of obtaining consent, partner notification, disclosure of HIV results, difficulties in addressing special populations, failure of not performing universal screening, failure to notify a person of being tested, failure to notify someone of their test results, liability of inaccurate tests, and failure to link to care. CONCLUSION: This qualitative analysis provides a broadly useful foundation to the ethical, financial, and legal considerations of implementing HIV screening programs in EDs throughout the United States.

Testing public health ethics: why the CDC's HIV screening recommendations may violate the least infringement principle.

The CDC's HIV screening recommendations for health care settings advocate abandoning two important autonomy protections: (1) pretest counseling and (2) the requirement that providers obtain affirmative agreement from patients prior to testing. The recommendations may violate the least infringement principle because there is insufficient evidence to conclude that abandoning pretest counseling or affirmative agreement requirements will further the CDC's stated public health goals.

An ethical evaluation of the 2006 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Recommendations for HIV testing in health care settings.

When in 2006 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued revised recommendations for HIV testing in health care settings, vocal opponents charged that use of an "opt-out" approach to presenting HIV testing to patients; the implementation of nontargeted, widespread HIV screening; the elimination of a separate signed consent; and the decoupling of required HIV prevention counseling from HIV testing are unethical. Here we undertake the first systematic ethical examination of the arguments both for and against the recommendations. Our examination reveals that the ethical concerns raised by the critics predominantly pertain not to ethically suspect elements of the recommendations themselves, but to suspicions that they will be implemented improperly. It has not been shown that the recommendations cannot be implemented properly. Here we show that in the United States the recommendations are morally justifiable and that safeguards or regulatory oversight may serve to ensure that the recommendations are properly implemented.