Search

Introduction: HIV diagnoses among gay and bisexual men have increased over the past decade in Australia. HIV point-of-care testing (POCT) was introduced in Australia in 2011 as a strategy to increase HIV testing by making the testing process more convenient. We surveyed gay and bisexual men undergoing POCT to assess barriers to HIV testing and characteristics associated with not having previously tested for HIV (never testing). Methods: During 2011 and 2012, gay and bisexual men who were undergoing POCT at four Sydney sexual health clinics self-completed questionnaires assessing testing history and psychological and structural barriers to HIV testing. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to assess associations between patient characteristics and never testing. Results: Of 1093 participants, 981 (89.9%) reported ever testing for HIV and 110 (10.1%) never testing. At least one barrier to testing was reported by 1046 men (95.7%), with only 47 men (4.3%) not reporting any barrier to testing. The most commonly reported barriers to testing were annoyance at having to return for results (30.2%), not having done anything risky (29.6%), stress in waiting for results (28.4%), being afraid of testing positive (27.5%) and having tested recently (23.2%). Never testing was independently associated with being non-gay-identified (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-3.2), being aged less than 25 years (AOR: 2.4; 95% CI: 1.6-3.8), living in a suburb with few gay couples (AOR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.2-3.0), being afraid of testing HIV-positive (AOR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.0-2.4), not knowing where to test (AOR: 3.8; 95% CI: 1.3-11.2) and reporting one or no sexual partners in the last six months (AOR: 2.7; 95% CI: 1.2-6.2). Conclusions: Barriers to HIV testing were commonly reported among the clinic-based gay and bisexual men in this study. Our findings suggest further health promotion and prevention strategies are needed to address the knowledge, atti

Objectives: Rapid HIV testing (RHT) is well established in many countries, but it is new in Australia since a policy change in 2011. We assessed service provider acceptability of RHT before and after its implementation in four Sydney public sexual health clinics. Methods: Service providers were surveyed immediately after training in RHT and again 6-12 months later. Differences in mean scores between survey rounds were assessed via t-tests, with stratification by profession and the number of tests performed. Results: RHT was rated as highly acceptable among staff at baseline and acceptability scores improved between survey rounds. Belief in being sufficiently skilled and experienced to perform RHT (P=0.004) and confidence in the delivery of nonreactive results increased (P=0.007), while the belief that RHT was disruptive declined (P=0.001). Acceptability was higher for staff who had performed a greater number of tests regarding comfort with their role in RHT (P=0.004) and belief that patients were satisfied with RHT (P=0.007). Compared with nurses, doctors had a stronger preference for a faster rapid test (P=0.027) and were more likely to agree that RHT interfered with consultations (P=0.014). Conclusions: Differences in responses between professions may reflect differences in staff roles, the type of patients seen by staff and the model of testing used, all of which may affect the number of tests performed by staff. These findings may inform planning for how best to implement RHT in clinical services.

Background: Rapid HIV testing (RHT) is well established in many countries, but it is new in Australia. We assessed the acceptability of RHT and its associations among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBM) after implementation of RHT in Sydney sexual health clinics. Methods: GBM were invited to complete an acceptability questionnaire before and after provision of the result of finger-prick blood RHT, comparing their experience of RHT with conventional HIV testing (CHT) involving venipuncture. Logistic regression was used to assess associations between patient characteristics and the preference for RHT over CHT next time they tested for HIV. Results: Of 1061 GBM who received non-reactive RHT results, 59% found RHT less stressful than CHT and 34% reported no difference, and 61% found RHT more comfortable than CHT and 26% reported no difference. Nearly all men were satisfied with RHT result delivery (99%) and the RHT process overall (99%). Most men (79%) preferred RHT for their next HIV test and this preference was stronger in men who were aged 35-44 years (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.49, p<0.01), reported they would test more often if RHT was available (AOR 1.66, p=0.01), found returning for results annoying (AOR 1.67, p=0.01), and found RHT less stressful (AOR 2.37, p<0.01) and more comfortable (AOR 1.62, p=0.02) than CHT. Men concerned about the reliability of RHT were less than half as likely to prefer RHT for their next HIV test (AOR 0.44, p<0.01). Conclusions: Most GBM preferred RHT to CHT next time and this preference was associated with finding RHT more convenient, more comfortable and less stressful than CHT. These findings suggest that in a clinic setting RHT should be considered to improve the patient experience and may potentially increase uptake and frequency of HIV testing.