Findings from the First Year of a Federally Funded, Direct-to-Consumer HIV Self-Test Distribution Program - United States, March 2023-March 2024.

In September 2022, CDC funded a nationwide program, Together TakeMeHome (TTMH), to expand distribution of HIV self-tests (HIVSTs) directly to consumers by mail through an online ordering portal. To publicize the availability of HIVSTs to priority audiences, particularly those disproportionately affected by HIV, CDC promoted this program through established partnerships and tailored resources from its Let's Stop HIV Together social marketing campaign. The online portal launched March 14, 2023, and through March 13, 2024, distributed 443,813 tests to 219,360 persons. Among 169,623 persons who answered at least one question on a postorder questionnaire, 67.9% of respondents were from priority audiences, 24.1% had never previously received testing for HIV, and 24.8% had not received testing in the past year. Among the subset of participants who initiated a follow-up survey, 88.3% used an HIVST themselves, 27.1% gave away an HIVST, 11.7% accessed additional preventive services, and 1.9% reported a new positive HIVST result. Mailed HIVST distribution can quickly reach large numbers of persons who have never received testing for HIV or have not received testing as often as is recommended. TTMH can help to achieve the goal of diagnosing HIV as early as possible and provides a path to other HIV prevention and care services. Clinicians, community organizations, and public health officials should be aware of HIVST programs, initiate discussions about HIV testing conducted outside their clinics or offices, and initiate follow-up services for persons who report a positive or negative HIVST result.

Possible unintended consequences of pediatric clinician strategies for communicating about social-emotional and developmental concerns in diverse young children.

INTRODUCTION: Screening to promote social-emotional well-being in toddlers has positive effects on long-term health and functioning. Communication about social-emotional well-being can be challenging for primary care clinicians for various reasons including lack of time, training and expertise, resource constraints, and cognitive burden. Therefore, we explored clinicians' perspectives on identifying and communicating with caregivers about social-emotional risk in toddlers. METHOD: In 2021, semistructured interviews were conducted with pediatric clinicians (N = 20) practicing in Federally Qualified Health Centers in a single metropolitan area. Most participants identified as female (n = 15; 75%), white non-Hispanic/Latino (n = 14; 70%), and were Doctors of Medicine or Osteopathic Medicine (n = 14; 70%). Thematic analysis was conducted on audio-recorded interview transcripts. RESULTS: Clinicians used various approaches to identify social-emotional concerns which were sometimes difficult to distinguish from other developmental concerns. The clinician-caregiver relationship guided identification and communication practices and cut-across themes. Themes include: starting with caregivers' concerns, communicating concerns with data and sensitivity, navigating labels, culture, and stigma, and limiting communication based on family capacity and interest. DISCUSSION: Prioritizing the clinician-caregiver relationship is consistent with best practice and family-centered care. Yet, the dearth of standardized decision support may undermine clinician confidence and impede timely conversations about social-emotional concerns. An evidence-based approach with developmentally based culturally informed quantitative tools and standardized decision supports could help ensure equitable management and decision making about young children's social and emotional well-being and development. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Process Evaluation in Health Communication Media Campaigns: A Systematic Review.

Objective. The objective is to examine the scope of health communication media campaign process evaluation methods, findings, and dissemination practices. Data Source. A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature was conducted using database searches. Study Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria. Published studies on process and implementation evaluation of health campaigns with a media component were included. Exclusion criteria included not health, non-empirical, no media campaign, or a focus on other evaluation types. Data Extraction. Articles were assessed for general campaign information, theory use, and details about process evaluation plan and procedures. Data Synthesis. A coding scheme based on 9 process evaluation best practice elements (e.g., fidelity and context) was applied. Process evaluation methods, measures, and reporting themes were synthesized. Results. Among 691 unique records, 46 articles were included. Process evaluation was the main focus for 71.7% of articles, yet only 39.1% reported how process evaluation informed campaign implementation strategy. Articles reported 4.39 elements on average (SD = 1.99; range 1-9), with reach (87.0%) and recruitment (73.9%) described most frequently, yet reporting was inconsistent. Further, the level of detail in reporting methods, theory, and analysis varied. Conclusions. Process evaluation provides insight about mechanisms and intervening variables that could meaningfully impact interpretations of outcome evaluations; however, process evaluations are less often included in literature. Recommendations for evidence-based process evaluation components to guide evaluation are discussed.

How patients deal with an ambiguous medical test: Decision-making after genetic testing.

OBJECTIVE: We know little about how patients make decisions when they receive a variant of uncertain significance result (VUS) from genetic testing. The purpose of this study was to elucidate a model of patient-informed decision-making after receiving a VUS result. METHODS: Using an adapted Mental Models Approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews with women who received a VUS result from genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer (N = 20) to explore factors they believed were relevant to their decision-making. Two coders used a coding scheme informed by experts in hereditary breast cancer to conduct analysis. Inter-coder reliability was α = .86. RESULTS: Three overarching decision themes emerged from the interviews: managing ambiguity, medical risk management, and sharing results with others. While participants noted some difficulty understanding their result, genetic counselors' interpretations, psychosocial factors (e.g., risk perceptions), and competing extrinsic demands influenced their decisions. CONCLUSION: Complex influences affect patient decision-making after a VUS result from genetic testing and may encourage health protective behavior. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Even patients who understand their test result could use support managing the ambiguity of their test result and sharing it with others.

A Modern Dilemma: How Experts Grapple with Ambiguous Genetic Test Results.

Objective. Clinicians regularly use panel genetic testing to identify hereditary breast cancer risk, but this practice increases the rate of receiving an ambiguous test result, the variant of uncertain significance (VUS). VUS results are a growing and long-term challenge for providers and have caused negative patient outcomes. The objective of this study was to elicit expert opinions about patients' decision making after receiving a VUS result to provide future guidance for VUS disclosure. Methods. Using an adapted mental models approach, experts (N = 25) completed an online survey and in-depth interview eliciting qualitative judgments of the factors relevant to informed patient decision making after receiving a VUS result. Content analysis of interview transcripts clarified the basis for these judgments. Results. Participants identified 11 decisions facing patients after receiving VUS results grouped into ambiguity management or risk management. The experts also identified 24 factors relevant to each decision, which reflected 2 themes: objective factors (e.g., clinical information, guidelines) and psychosocial factors (e.g., understanding or risk perception). Conclusion. This study presents an adaptation of the mental models approach for communication under conditions of ambiguity. Findings suggest providers who present VUS results from genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer should discuss decisions related to ambiguity management that focus on hope for future reclassification, and be directive when discussing risk management decisions. Objective and psychosocial factors should influence both ambiguity and risk management decisions, but especially risk management decisions.

Previving: How Unaffected Women with a BRCA1/2 Mutation Navigate Previvor Identity.

Receiving a positive result for a BRCA1/2 (BRCA) mutation - indicating a high lifetime risk to develop hereditary breast and ovarian cancer - can significantly alter a woman's identity. BRCA-positive women who have not been diagnosed with cancer may be labeled "previvors," which distinguishes those at-risk for developing cancer, but have not had cancer. Using semi-structured interviews (N = 25), this study explored how unaffected BRCA-positive women navigate the previvor identity. Women in this sample differed on their definitions of previvor, views of acceptance, rejection, or ambivalence toward the label, and identification as a previvor. Understanding how women interpret and embrace the previvor identity may help inform communication for those with BRCA genetic mutations, but whom have not been diagnosed with cancer.