Who is providing HIV diagnostic testing? Comparing HIV testing by general practitioners and sexual health centres in five regions in the Netherlands, 2011-2018.

OBJECTIVES: General practitioners (GPs) and sexual health centres (SHCs) are the main providers of HIV testing and diagnose two-thirds of HIV infections in the Netherlands. We compared regional HIV testing and positivity by GPs versus SHCs to gain insight into strategies to improve HIV testing, to enable timely detection of HIV infections. METHODS: Laboratory data (2011-2018) on HIV testing by GPs and SHCs in five Dutch regions with varying levels of urbanisation were evaluated. Regional HIV testing rates per 10 000 residents ≥15 years (mean over period and annual) were compared between providers using negative binomial generalised additive models and additionally stratified by sex and age (15-29 years, 30-44 years, 45-59 years, ≥60 years). χ2 tests were used to compare positivity percentage between the two groups of providers. RESULTS: In the study period, 505 167 HIV tests (GP 36%, SHC 64%) were performed. The highest HIV testing rates were observed in highly urbanised regions, with large regional variations. The HIV testing rates ranged from 28 to 178 per 10 000 residents by GPs and from 30 to 378 per 10 000 by SHCs. Testing rates by GPs were lower than by SHCs in three regions and comparable in two. In all regions, men were tested less by GPs than by SHCs; for women, this varied by region. Among those aged 15-29 years old, GPs' testing rates were lower than SHCs', while this was reversed in older age categories in four out of five regions. The overall mean HIV positivity was 0.4%. In contrast to other regions, positivity in Amsterdam was significantly higher among individuals tested by GPs than by SHCs. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective observational study shows that besides SHCs, who perform opt-out testing for key groups, GPs play a prominent role in HIV testing, especially in non-key populations, such as women and older individuals. Large regional variation exists, requiring region-specific interventions to improve GPs' HIV testing practices.

[Experience of first COVID-19 patients in Northern part of the Netherlands: Information provision, source investigation, contact tracing and home isolation]. / Eerste covid-19-patiënten in Noord-Nederland.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate how patients experience the information, the source investigation and contact tracing and the measures in isolation at the start of a pandemic. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of semi-structured interviews was conducted as part of a larger exploratory mixed-methods study on COVID-19 patient experiences. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 people from Friesland and Groningen who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 9 March and 3 April 2020, recruited via maximum variation sampling. Thematic analysis was used. RESULTS: The following themes emerged from the analysis: 1) Information: Conflicting information by different advisors led to a lack of clarity. Patients admitted to hospital usually felt uninformed about the rules of home isolation after discharge. 2) Investigation into the source of infection: For most it was unclear whether and how this investigation took place. Some expected feedback on their suggestions. 3) Informing contacts: Not everyone felt able to inform the right contacts. Some felt stigmatized. 4) Living with the measures in home isolation: The recommended living rules were often not fully applied. Some patients felt insufficiently supported. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that not all COVID-19 patients felt well cared for at the start of the outbreak. Scaling down monitoring by the public health service can mean that questions about source and contact investigation and isolation remain unanswered or are answered by others. This leads to conflicting information and non-compliance with measures. The supervision of patients in isolation should be better guarded.

[Summary of the Dutch College of General Practitioners' practice guideline on food hypersensitivity]. / Samenvatting van de NHG-Standaard 'Voedselovergevoeligheid'

October 2010 the Dutch College of General Practitioners issued a revised version of their previous practice guideline of 1995 on food hypersensitivity in infants. If patients suspect either themselves or their child of having a food allergy, this is usually not demonstrated in subsequent investigation. Wrongly prescribed elimination diets may have adverse effects. Examination of serum specific IgE levels has no place in the diagnosis of food allergy in general practice. An open elimination challenge is especially suitable in order to exclude a food allergy. A sure diagnosis of food allergy can only be made by a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge. There are no proven effective measures that can prevent food allergy.