Percentage and determinants of missed HIV testing in pregnancy: a survey of women delivering in the Lazio region, Italy.

HIV testing is recommended as part of routine preconception and prenatal care but some cases of vertical transmission still occur because of missed HIV testing in pregnancy. We estimated the percentage of women missing HIV testing before delivery, and we evaluated factors related with it. An anonymous survey was distributed to women giving birth during a two-week period in the maternity units of hospitals in the Lazio region of Italy in 2011. Among the 1568 women who filled out the questionnaire, only 33.6% had an HIV test prior to conception, while 88.2% were tested during pregnancy; main reasons reported for missed testing were: not requested by the gynaecologist (57.0%), performed previously (20.7%), requested by the gynaecologist but not done (13.3%) and structural/organisational barriers (4.4%). The percentage of women who missed the HIV test as part of preconception care or during pregnancy was 9.1% (95% confidence interval, CI: 7.7-10.6). Multivariate analysis showed that those with missed test were younger (p = 0.05), of lower education level (p < 0.01), with a lower HIV-knowledge score (p < 0.01) and with fewer visits during pregnancy (p < 0.01). Around 10% of delivering women were not tested for HIV during pregnancy or as part of preconception care. Absence of a specific request by the gynaecologist was the most frequent reason given. The association of missed HIV testing with poor sociocultural level and limited maternal HIV knowledge emphasise the importance of promoting HIV information among women and prenatal care providers. Strategies to increase routine testing may include the adoption of an opt-out approach. Finally, availability of rapid HIV testing in the delivery room should be encouraged.

Developing a Strategy for COVID-19 Control Among Hard-to-Reach Migrant Communities: The Experience of Roma 2 Local Health Authority.

Roma 2 Local Health Authority (ASL) developed a strategy to control the COVID-19 epidemic in Hard-to-reach (HTR) migrant communities, addressing both the containment of clusters in informal settlements and access to COVID-19 vaccination. The strategy was based on a strong collaboration of different services across the ASL and with Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). NGOs were involved in the active surveillance, reporting of COVID-19 suspected cases to the ASL and information to the communities. Health interventions (e.g., COVID-19 tests, contact tracing, vaccination) were offered in outreach in HTR communities' life places. From April 2020 to February 2021, 15 outbreaks were controlled, for a total of over 4,500 persons reached, and 265 COVID-19 cases identified. From July to November 2021, vaccinations were offered in outreach or with dedicated sessions, reaching 1,398 people. This intervention model may lay the foundations for the design of public health strategies, not only aimed at HTR populations.

Description of two measles outbreaks in the Lazio Region, Italy (2006-2007). Importance of pockets of low vaccine coverage in sustaining the infection.

BACKGROUND: Despite the launch of the national plan for measles elimination, in Italy, immunization coverage remains suboptimal and outbreaks continue to occur. Two measles outbreaks, occurred in Lazio region during 2006-2007, were investigated to identify sources of infection, transmission routes, and assess operational implications for elimination of the disease. METHODS: Data were obtained from several sources, the routine infectious diseases surveillance system, field epidemiological investigations, and molecular genotyping of virus by the national reference laboratory. RESULTS: Overall 449 cases were reported, sustained by two different stereotypes overlapping for few months. Serotype D4 was likely imported from Romania by a Roma/Sinti family and subsequently spread to the rest of the population. Serotype B3 was responsible for the second outbreak which started in a secondary school. Pockets of low vaccine coverage individuals (Roma/Sinti communities, high school students) facilitated the reintroduction of serotypes not endemic in Italy and facilitated the measles infection to spread. CONCLUSIONS: Communities with low vaccine coverage represent a more serious public health threat than do sporadic susceptible individuals. The successful elimination of measles will require additional efforts to immunize low vaccine coverage population groups, including hard-to-reach individuals, adolescents, and young adults. An enhanced surveillance systems, which includes viral genotyping to document chains of transmission, is an essential tool for evaluating strategy to control and eliminate measles.

Quality measurement and benchmarking of HPV vaccination services: a new approach.

BACKGROUND: A new measurement process based upon a well-defined mathematical model was applied to evaluate the quality of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination centers in 3 of 12 Local Health Units (ASLs) within the Lazio Region of Italy. The quality aspects considered for evaluation were communicational efficiency, organizational efficiency and comfort. RESULTS: The overall maximum achievable value was 86.10%, while the HPV vaccination quality scores for ASL1, ASL2 and ASL3 were 73.07%, 71.08%, and 67.21%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: With this new approach it is possible to represent the probabilistic reasoning of a stakeholder who evaluates the quality of a healthcare provider. All ASLs had margins for improvements and optimal quality results can be assessed in terms of better performance conditions, confirming the relationship between the resulting quality scores and HPV vaccination coverage. METHODS: The measurement process was structured into three steps and involved four stakeholder categories: doctors, nurses, parents and vaccinated women. In Step 1, questionnaires were administered to collect different stakeholders' points of view (i.e., subjective data) that were elaborated to obtain the best and worst performance conditions when delivering a healthcare service. Step 2 of the process involved the gathering of performance data during the service delivery (i.e., objective data collection). Step 3 of the process involved the elaboration of all data: subjective data from step 1 are used to define a "standard" to test objective data from step 2. This entire process led to the creation of a set of scorecards. Benchmarking is presented as a result of the probabilistic meaning of the evaluated scores.