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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Routine HIV testing in health care settings: the deterrent factors to maximal implementation in sub-Saharan Africa.

The sub-Saharan region of Africa is the most severely affected HIV/AIDS region in the world. The population of this region accounts for 67% of all people living with HIV/AIDS and 72% of all AIDS-related deaths. As international collaboration makes access to HIV treatment more widely available in this region the need to increase the population's awareness of its serostatus becomes greater. The incorporation of provider-initiated HIV testing and counseling (routine HIV testing model) as part of a routine medical care would not only increase the population's serostatus awareness but also lead to a better understanding of HIV prevention and treatment and ultimately, increased utilization of available HIV/AIDS prevention programs on a much larger scale. This mini-review summarizes some important regional, sociocultural, economic, legal, and ethical issues that may be deterrent factors to maximal implementation and integration of provider initiated HIV testing and counseling as part of routine medical care in the sub-Saharan African region.

HIV testing of junior doctors: exploring their experiences, perspectives and accounts.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the accounts and perspectives of junior doctors who were offered an HIV test by their employing National Health Service (NHS) trust and discuss ethical issues posed by this new policy. DESIGN: Qualitative in-depth interview study. SETTING: 4 NHS hospital trusts. PARTICIPANTS: 24 junior doctors who had been offered an HIV test as part of their pre-employment occupational health checks. RESULTS: The manner in which HIV tests were offered to junior doctors varied both between and within the NHS trusts. Overall, the doctors were highly critical of the way the HIV test was offered. Recurrent themes surrounding a lack of discussion and information regarding the indications for the test and implications of a positive result influenced the the doctors' perception of their experiences. As a consequence of the shortcomings of how the test was offered, most of the doctors held the misperception that HIV testing was mandatory and many felt unable to decline the test. The majority of doctors referred to patient protection as adequate justification for being offered an HIV test. CONCLUSIONS: Junior doctors offered an HIV test under new Department of Health occupational health guidance were disparaging about how the test was offered. The findings of this study affect thousands of junior doctors in the UK, and the impact of these results is extensive. Participants' suggestions regarding how the process of offering an HIV test can be improved are discussed and ethical issues regarding the new Department of Health policy are highlighted.

Couple counselling and testing for HIV at antenatal clinics: views from men, women and counsellors.

The purpose of this study was to gain insight from views of Tanzanian men and women on couple voluntary counselling and testing (CVCT) for HIV at antenatal clinics (ANC) in Tanzania. Data collection was through focus group discussions with women aged 25-48 years (n=8), women 18-24 years (n=10), HIV counsellors (n=11), men aged 20-34 (n=8) and men aged 35-75 years (n=8) and in-depth interviews (IDI) with five men and eight women. Participants were asked their views concerning men volunteering for CVCT for HIV, motivation of couples to receive results together and effective ways of counselling sero-discordant couples. Many participants agreed on the importance of incorporating CVCT at ANC, while others expressed reservations due to the cultural belief that ANC is for women. The importance of love, care and respect between sero-discordant couples was stressed; nonetheless, many anticipated that disclosure of HIV-positive status to an HIV-negative spouse could result in abandonment, divorce or violence against the woman whether she was sero-negative or -positive. Couple counselling and testing at ANC incorporating the suggestions made by study participants could become an important intervention for the prevention of HIV transmission and maintenance of good relations between sero-discordant partners.

Legal and ethical implications of opt-out HIV testing.

New guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that opt-out screening for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) without written patient consent be part of routine clinical care and imply that state HIV-associated laws in conflict with this approach should be amended. However, HIV testing and treatment issues are governed by a range of federal and state laws, common law principles, constitutional provisions, and various codes of ethics. Patient testing protocols should satisfy the legal definition of informed consent, to reduce risk of liability for providers (i.e., health care professionals and facilities). Rigid application of the new guidelines may trigger legal claims, especially if there is no link to care for persons with a positive test result, no proof of informed consent, or inadequate counseling. Ensuring confidentiality, better test training for providers, and provider collaboration with HIV service organizations can reduce the risk of patient claims, but state and federal laws, codes of ethics, and concerns about provider liability should temper reflexive wholesale adoption of guidelines that recommend opt-out screening.

Rethinking mandatory HIV testing during pregnancy in areas with high HIV prevalence rates: ethical and policy issues.

We analyzed the ethical and policy issues surrounding mandatory HIV testing of pregnant women in areas with high HIV prevalence rates. Through this analysis, we seek to demonstrate that a mandatory approach to testing and treatment has the potential to significantly reduce perinatal transmission of HIV and defend the view that mandatory testing is morally required if a number of conditions can be met. If such programs are to be introduced, continuing medical care, including highly active antiretroviral therapy, must be provided and pregnant women must have reasonable alternatives to compulsory testing and treatment. We propose that a liberal regime entailing abortion rights up to the point of fetal viability would satisfy these requirements. Pilot studies in the high-prevalence region of southern African countries should investigate the feasibility of this approach.

Should rapid tests for HIV infection now be mandatory during pregnancy? Global differences in scarcity and a dilemma of technological advance.

Since testing for HIV infection became possible in 1985, testing of pregnant women has been conducted primarily on a voluntary, 'opt-in' basis. Faden, Geller and Powers, Bayer, Wilfert, and McKenna, among others, have suggested that with the development of more reliable testing and more effective therapy to reduce maternal-fetal transmission, testing should become either routine with 'opt-out' provisions or mandatory. We ask, in the light of the new rapid tests for HIV, such as OraQuick, and the development of antiretroviral treatment that can reduce maternal-fetal transmission rates to <2%, whether that time is now. Illustrating our argument with cases from the United States (US), Kenya, Peru, and an undocumented Mexican worker in the US, we show that when testing is accompanied by assured multi-drug therapy for the mother, the argument for opt-out or mandatory testing for HIV in pregnancy is strong, but that it is problematic where testing is accompanied by adverse events such as spousal abuse or by inadequate intrapartum or follow-up treatment. The difference is not a 'double standard', but reflects the presence of conflicts between the health interests of the mother and the fetus--conflicts that would be abrogated by the assurance of adequate, continuing multi-drug therapy. In light of these conflicts, where they still occur, careful processes of informed consent are appropriate, rather than opt-out or mandatory testing.

HIV testing in correctional institutions: evaluating existing strategies, setting new standards.

Before introducing an HIV testing protocol into correctional facilities, the unique nature of these environments must be taken into account. We analyze three testing strategies that have been used in correctional settings--mandatory, voluntary, and routine "opt out" testing--and conclude that routine testing is most likely beneficial to inmates, the correctional system, and the outside community. The ethics of pre-release testing, and the issues surrounding segregation, confidentiality, and linking prisoners with community-based care, also play a role in determining how best to establish HIV testing strategies in correctional facilities. Testing must be performed in a manner that is not simply beneficial to public health, but also enhances the safety and health status of individual inmates. Longer-stay prison settings provide ample opportunities not just for testing but also for in-depth counseling, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and antiretroviral therapy. Jails present added complexities because of their shorter stay with respect to prisons, and testing, treatment, and counseling policies must be adapted to these settings.