A rapid review of equity considerations in large-scale testing campaigns during infectious disease epidemics

Katarina Ost, Louise Duquesne, Claudia Duguay, Lola Traverson, Isadora Mathevet, Valéry Ridde, Kate Zinszer
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.22.21252205

ABSTRACT

Context Large-scale testing is an intervention that is instrumental for infectious disease control and a central tool for the COVID-19 pandemic. Our rapid review aimed to identify if and how equity has been considered in large-scale testing initiatives.

Methods We searched Web of Science and PubMed in November 2020 and followed PRISMA recommendations for scoping reviews. Articles were analyzed using descriptive and thematic analysis.

Results Our search resulted in 291 studies of which 41 were included for data extraction after full article screening. Most of the included articles (83%) reported on HIV-related screening programs, while the remaining programs focused on other sexually transmitted infections (n=3) or COVID-19 (n=4). None of the studies presented a formal definition of (in)equity in testing, however, 23 articles did indirectly include elements of equity in the program or intervention design, largely through the justification of their target population.

Conclusion The studies included in our rapid review did not explicitly consider equity in their design or evaluation. It is imperative that equity is incorporated into the design of infectious disease testing programs and serves as an important reminder of how equity considerations are needed for SARS-CoV-2 testing and vaccination programs.

1. INTRODUCTION

It is essential to understand how COVID-19 testing campaigns are being offered in the current pandemic situation, in order to improve their equitable implementation. Racialized and marginalized communities have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19 (1–3) and improving equitable access to COVID-19 testing would be a vital step in reducing disease propagation (4). Large-scale testing is instrumental for surveillance, directly informing measures of prevention, control, and mitigation of infectious diseases (5–8). The goal of large-scale testing interventions is to reduce transmission rates through detection, treatment, isolation, and any other relevant control and prevention measures (9). Testing programs often act as a link to care and support programs, which should be provided equitably, based on risk of infection and disease burden (10). A proportionate universalism framework-based public health program would imply two components: a universal approach of support and services available to the population as a whole, accompanied by accessible targeted initiatives for those highly vulnerable and for those least likely to benefit from the universal program (11,12). When applied to COVID-19 testing initiatives, a proportionate universalism approach could include a universal program for SARS-CoV-2 testing with concerted efforts to reach vulnerable groups less able to access the universal testing programs.

Equity is defined by the “absence of systematic disparities in health or in major social determinants of health between groups with different levels of underlying social advantages/disadvantages’’ (13,14) whereas health inequities refer to “differences in health status or in the distribution of health resources between different population groups, arising from the social conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age. They are unfair, avoidable, and could be reduced by the right mix of government policies.” (15,16). This is an important concept for understanding the differences between (in)equity from the more general term (in)equality, two words that are often confused (17,18). Health inequalities refer to the uneven distribution of health or health resources (i.e. clinics, healthcare providers, disease tests, infrastructure, clinical material) in or between populations and it is primarily a descriptive term exempt from moral perspective (17–19). Social determinants of health play a key role in both inequality and inequity. Disparities in social determinants are found along social gradients (1) and are often avoidable as they result from deeply rooted social institutions, practices, and injustices (18). Thus, (in)equity is the politicized expression of (in)equality involving a moral commitment to social justice (18). In light of these fundamental differences, equity-sensitive public health interventions require measures of health and social determinants of health specific and sensitive to the health issue at hand (20). In our review we identify if and how equity has been considered in large-scale infectious disease testing initiatives. Identifying examples of (in)equity in these initiatives can help guide the design of large-scale testing campaigns for the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. METHODS

We chose to conduct a rapid review approach as it enabled us to synthesize, with rigor and in a relatively short period of time, the state of knowledge about our research objective (21,22). We have a detailed online protocol published elsewhere (23).

2.1 Research strategy

The research strategy was developed in consultation with librarians from the French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD) and the University of Montreal. We began our electronic database query in July 2020 on PubMed and Web of Science, and updated our search in November 2020 to better reflect the rapidly evolving state of COVID-19 literature. The following english and french key words were used to define our queries (Appendix 1) : “testing”, “mass testing”, “dépistage”, “screening”; “TB”, “tuberculosis”, “tuberculose”; “HIV”, “VIH”, “human immunodeficiency virus”; “COVID-19”, “SARS-CoV-2”, “coronavirus”; “design”, “planification”, “planning”; “equit*”, “equal*”, “inégalités”, “inégalités sociales en santé”, “ISS”, “social inequities in health”; “pandemi*”, “epidemic”, “outbreak”, “endemic”; “infectious disease”, “maladie infectieuse”.

We followed the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (24). We used the Automated Text Classification of Empirical Records (ATCER) (25) tool to classify abstracts with an empirical degree ≥ 80. ATCER is a tool that automatically categorizes publications indexed in bibliographic databases into (a) empirical studies (>50), and (b) non-empirical work (<50) (25). We selected the ATCER threshold of ≥ 80 to reflect articles that were “highly empirical”, due to our objective of including studies with quantitative data such as program evaluation indicators. The inclusion criteria for articles were: i) a focus on an infectious disease, ii) description of the design portion of a testing or screening program, iii) published in English or in French, iv) had an empirical degree greater than 80 according to the ATCER tool, and v) published after 2010.

2.2 Selection of studies

All identified studies were imported from PubMed and Web of Science into Rayyan QCRI (26), a systematic review software, for screening of the titles, abstracts, and full texts. At least two of three involved reviewers (KO, LD, CD) independently assessed the relevance of titles and abstracts based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The second stage of review involved two of three reviewers independently identifying potentially relevant publications based on a full article review. Any discordance in the process was discussed among all reviewers and if no consensus was reached, an additional reviewer (LT) was consulted.

2.3 Study characteristics and data extraction

After independent full text screening was conducted by at least two reviewers, data from the retained articles were extracted and assessed. Extracted data included the following elements: characteristics (title, authors, year), context (country, disease addressed), and the consideration of health inequities or inequalities in the design of the intervention, the main results, and the discussion of the study. If the study considered health inequities, we extracted further information on which measures of equity were considered and if a specific tool or theoretical framework was used in the program design. Generally, a theoretical framework can be used to inform how a public health program is planned and what strategic and operational components were considered during the process of this planning (27). We considered equity (explicit or implicit) in the i) intervention rationale, ii) design, iii) choice of target population, and iv) final recommendations for future initiatives based on the PROGRESS-plus criteria (28). The PROGRESS Plus framework was developed and endorsed by the Campbell and Cochrane Equity Methods Group, in order to highlight a set of social determinants of health that drive variations in health outcomes and the inequalities among the social determinants of health gradient (28). The categories referred to by the acronym are: place of residence, race or ethnicity, occupation, gender, religion, educational level, socioeconomic status (SES), and social capital. Our goal, through the use of these tools, was to assess the presence or absence of the consideration of health inequities in the implementation or evaluation of testing programs.

We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) (29), and specifically used the section on study methodology to apply a systematic definition to the included articles. The MMAT encompasses five study design categories: i) qualitative research, ii) randomized controlled trials, iii) non-randomized studies, iv) quantitative descriptive studies, and v) mixed methods studies.

In addition, we followed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR-PHP) checklist and guide to assess study coherence and program reporting and evaluation completeness (30). The 12-item checklist includes categories: (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) and is an extension of the CONSORT checklist.

3. RESULTS

3.1 Description of the studies

We initially identified 291 references with 41 peer reviewed studies being included in the review (Figure 1). According to MMAT classifications, the studies were a mixture of 2 randomized studies (31,32), 17 non-randomized studies (33–50), 18 descriptive quantitative studies (51–67), and 4 mixed-methods studies (68–71) (Table 1). Most of the studies (83%) reported on HIV-related screening programs, while the remaining studies focused on other sexually transmitted infections (n=3) and COVID-19 (n=4). The evaluated studies were implemented in North America (n=27), Europe (n=8), Africa (n=5), and Asia (n=1).

View this table:
TABLE 1: Description of included articles (n=41)

The main type of study setting among the included articles were hospitals (n=16) and clinic-based (n=10). Nine of the 16 hospital-based studies were in emergency departments (31,35,49,50,53,55,56,59,71), 6 were hospital inpatient or outpatient-based (43,45,60,61,69,70), and 1 was directed at hospital healthcare workers (44). Of the 10 clinic-based studies, 7 occurred in HIV/STI testing centers, public health clinics, or community health centers (36,39,42,62– 64,72), 2 were in general practitioner offices (35,47), and 1 was in an urgent care clinic (67). For participant recruitment, 13 studies recruited participants outside of healthcare testing settings, such as: prison-settings (38,65,68), community-based or mobile clinic (34,40,42,46), dental or pharmacy settings (52,54), homeless shelters (51,58), residential homes (48), and multiple sites and settings (37). Most studies (n=38) focused on a combination of adults over the age of 18 and sexually active individuals over the age of 13 (31,32,34–40,42–50,52–54,56–60,62–72). Two articles investigated pediatric populations (55,61), with one other study focused on newborns and their mothers (41) and one on the elderly (48).

3.2 Consideration of Health Equity, PROGRESS-Plus: Measures of (In)Equity

Measures of equity/inequity were assessed based on the PROGRESS-Plus framework. None of the 41 included studies evaluated whether the intervention reduced health inequity or inequalities as a study objective, nor did they include a formal definition of equity/inequity (or framework). Elements of health equity were indirectly addressed in 23 studies (Table 2), largely through the use of targeted interventions. Of these 23 studies, 20 included at least one category of PROGRESS-plus in the justification, methods, results or discussion of the paper, while only 8 of the 23 articles alluding to health equity addressed a PROGRESS-plus category in all relevant sections of their article (Table 2): from the introduction to the discussion and conclusion. The target populations were most often described as disadvantaged subgroups of the population who bore the largest burden of disease and/or have the least access to health care. For example, four articles, two of which focused on HIV and/or STI testing and two on COVID-19, all targeted their programs towards four different “high risk” populations. For the HIV and/or STI testing programs, one program (72)targeted men based on their sexual orientation whereas another program (62) focused on race and ethnicity. For the COVID-19 testing programs, one intervention (51) focused on those experiencing homelessness, whereas another was based in a long-term care facility (48).

View this table:
TABLE 2:

Results of equity appraisal using concepts of implicit/explicitly defined equity and PROGRESS-plus categories

4. DISCUSSION

This rapid review largely featured articles addressing HIV testing programs, and/or testing programs of infectious disease in North America in formal healthcare settings such as clinics or hospitals. None of the 41 studies included in this rapid review examined health equity in their interventions, however, 8 studies did consistently include elements of equity in their testing intervention, without the inclusion of any formal measurement of, or framework specifically implemented in order to address health equity. Specifically, most (n=6) of these 8 articles considered the PROGRESS-plus categories of gender and/or sex.

To our knowledge, no prior studies have examined the equitable access, delivery, or design of COVID-19 testing programs. This review shows that implicit measures of equity have been implemented through targeting COVID-19 testing programs to high-risk populations such as health care workers (44), people living in homeless shelters (51,58,73) and long-term care facilities (48). It is largely recognized that targeted actions towards specific communities or groups imply labelling, thus stigma, and increases the risk of missing numerous infections in particularly vulnerable population groups (11,12,74,75). The current pandemic is exacerbating health inequities and testing programs need to be designed accordingly to address these inequities, which are also central to mitigating disease spread (76–79). An example of an approach that could be used in combination with existing testing infrastructure to increase equitable access to COVID-19 testing consists of the deployment of rapid antigen testing kits for in-home testing for those with faced with mobility or geographic restrictions or work and/or family obligations that do not easily coincide with testing program schedules (3).

Numerous tools exist to support incorporating equity values within public health interventions and programs (80–82). These tools should be used both during the design, implementation, and evaluation process, as the link between equity intention and action remains challenging (83). TIDieR-PHP was developed to enable consistent reporting of Population Health and Policy (PHP) interventions to promote transparency and transferability of findings to diverse settings. PHP interventions are crucial to addressing disparities in social and economic determinants of health (30). This tool, when used in combination with the PROGRESS-plus framework, should ensure that researchers and practitioners are thinking critically about what health inequities they are addressing, how they are being measured and considered consistently throughout the program design, implementation, and evaluation process. To ensure that public health interventions are developed and implemented around the concept of equity, strong health policies and educational goals of healthcare professionals need to be on the public political and economic agenda (84).

Recommendations towards improving the inclusion of health equity in large-scale testing interventions

  • Use tools such as PROGRESS-Plus framework to ensure explicit inclusion of health equity when in the process of designing, implementing, and/or evaluating interventions.

  • Promote the use of TIDIER-PHP to systematically review public health programs and promote replicability of existing equitable programs to other settings.

4.1 Limitations

Given our objective to include studies with empirical results and also to conduct the review in a timely manner, we chose an ATCER threshold of 80. This may have limited our findings and the generalizability of the results. We recommend that a full scoping review be conducted on this topic to further investigate important trends on the incorporation of health equity into infectious disease testing programs.

4.2 Conclusion

The results of this rapid review highlight the overall lack of consideration of equity in the design of large-scale testing interventions. This is a particularly concerning issue as social and economic inequities continue to be exacerbated by COVID-19 and there has not been any research to date that discusses how COVID-19 testing programs have been designed with equity in mind (1–3). To achieve equity in testing and to optimize the role of testing in disease prevention and control, strategies should ensure that the probability of being tested is proportionate to the risk of being affected by the disease (85,86). We urge practitioners, decision makers, and researchers to explicitly include equity measures when designing and implementing COVID-19 large-scale testing interventions, which should also be considered in COVID-19 vaccination programs.

Data Availability

All rapid review search criteria, databases, and keywords are listed in the manuscript or appendix.

6. FUNDING SOURCES, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

This work was supported by The Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé (FRQS) [ZINKA170, 2020]; CIHR Canadian 2019 Novel Coronavirus Rapid Research Competition [440254]; and the French National Research Agency (ANR) (ANR-20-COVI-000). Authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Laurence Goury, librarian at the IRD, and Julie Desnoyers, librarian at the University of Montreal, for their advice regarding the search strategy and the queries on the bibliographic databases.

APPENDIX 1 PRISMA diagram for selection of articles for data extraction

Figure

APPENDIX 2 Queries in the electronic databases PubMed and Web of Science (filled in on 15/11/2020)

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Bajos N, Jusot F, Pailhé A, Spire A, Martin C, Meyer L, et al. When lockdown policies amplify social inequalities in COVID-19 infections. Evidence from a cross-sectional population-based survey in France. medRxiv. 2020 Oct 11;2020.10.07.20208595.
  2. 2.
    Berger ZD, Evans NG, Phelan AL, Silverman RD. Covid-19: control measures must be equitable and inclusive. BMJ [Internet]. 2020 Mar 20 [cited 2020 Oct 29];368. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m1141
  3. 3.↵
    Mukumbang FC, Ambe AN, Adebiyi BO. Unspoken inequality: how COVID-19 has exacerbated existing vulnerabilities of asylum-seekers, refugees, and undocumented migrants in South Africa. Int J Equity Health. 2020 Aug 20;19(1):141.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    Benjamin GC. Ensuring health equity during the COVID-19 pandemic: the role of public health infrastructure. 2020 Jun;4.
  5. 5.↵
    CDC. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) [Internet]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020 [cited 2020 Jun 25]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/testing-overview.html
  6. 6.
    CDC. HIV Testing [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Jun 25]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/testing/index.html
  7. 7.
    Ontario HIV Treatment Network. Effectiveness of HIV testing interventions for high-risk populations [Internet]. Toronto, ON; 2013 Sep [cited 2020 Jun 25]. Available from: https://www.ohtn.on.ca/rapid-response-71-effectiveness-of-hiv-testing-interventions-for-high-risk-populations/
  8. 8.↵
    WHO. Systematic screening for active tuberculosis [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2020 Jun 25]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789241548601
  9. 9.↵
    WHO. Chapter 10: Controlling the spread of infectious disease. In: Advancing the right to health: the vital role of law [Internet]. 2016. p. 151–64. Available from: https://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/health-law/chapter10.pdf?ua=1
  10. 10.↵
    Institute of Medicine (US), Committee on Perinatal Transmission of HIV, National Research Council (US), Institute of Medicine (US), Board on Children, Youth, and Families. Reducing the Odds; Preventing Perinatal Transmission of HIV in the United States; Chapter 2: Public Health Screening Programs. In: Public Health Screening Programs; Chapter 2 [Internet]. National Academies Press (US); 1999 [cited 2020 Jun 15]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230552/
  11. 11.↵
    Carey G. Towards health equity: a framework for the application of proportionate universalism. Int J Equity Health. 2015;14(81):8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Marmot M, Allen J. COVID-19: exposing and amplifying inequalities. J Epidemiol Community Health [Internet]. 2020 Jul 14 [cited 2020 Jul 17]; Available from: https://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2020/07/15/jech-2020-214720
  13. 13.↵
    Braveman PA. Monitoring equity in health and healthcare: a conceptual framework. J Health Popul Nutr. 2003 Sep;21(3):181–92.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    Braveman P, Gruskin S. Defining equity in health. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003 Apr 1;57(4):254–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    WHO. Health inequities and their causes [Internet]. World Health Organization. 2018 [cited 2021 Jan 18]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/facts-in-pictures/detail/health-inequities-and-their-causes
  16. 16.↵
    Harris P, Baum F, Friel S. A glossary of theories for understanding power and policy for health equity | Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2020;74:548–52.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    Hosseinpoor AR, Bergen N, Koller T, Prasad A, Schlotheuber A, Valentine N, et al. Equity-Oriented Monitoring in the Context of Universal Health Coverage. PLOS Med. 2014 Sep 22;11(9):e1001727.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    Kawachi I, Subramanian SV, Almeida-Filho N. A glossary for health inequalities. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002 Sep 1;56(9):647–52.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    Reidpath DD, Allotey P. Measuring global health inequity. Int J Equity Health. 2007 Oct 30;6(1):16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Hancock T, Labonte R, Edwards R. Indicators that count! Measuring population health at the community level. Can J Public Health Rev Can Sante Publique. 1999 Dec;90 Suppl 1:S22–26.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Jordan Z. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Jan 10;18(1):5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    Saul JE, Willis CD, Bitz J, Best A. A time-responsive tool for informing policy making: rapid realist review. Implement Sci. 2013 Sep 5;8(1):103.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    Ost K, Zinszer K, Mathevet I, Traverson L, Ridde V. Mass testing equity during infectious disease outbreaks: a scoping review. V.2 [Internet]. protocols.io. 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 8]. Available from: https://www.protocols.io/researchers/m4tle152t1u4sle1
  24. 24.↵
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ [Internet]. 2009 Jul 21 [cited 2020 Jul 20];339. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2700
  25. 25.↵
    ATCER. Automated Text Classification of Empirical Records (ATCER) User Guide [Internet]. Available from: https://babel.iro.umontreal.ca/xres/ATCER_instructions_final.pdf.
  26. 26.↵
    Rayyan QCRI, the Systematic Reviews web app [Internet]. [cited 2020 Sep 25]. Available from: https://rayyan.qcri.org/welcome
  27. 27.↵
    Planning Health Promotion Programs [Internet]. Public Health Ontario. [cited 2020 Oct 29]. Available from: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/Health Topics/Public Health Practice/Program Planning Evaluation/Planning Programs
  28. 28.↵
    O’Neill J. Applying an equity lens to interventions: using PROGRESS ensures consideration of socially stratifying factors to illuminate inequities in health. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;9.
  29. 29.↵
    Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, Dagenais P, et al. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Educ Inf. 2018 Jan 1;34(4):285–91.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    Campbell M, Katikireddi SV, Hoffmann T, Armstrong R, Waters E, Craig P. TIDieR-PHP: a reporting guideline for population health and policy interventions. BMJ [Internet]. 2018 May 16 [cited 2020 Sep 25];361. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k1079
  31. 31.↵
    Cowan E, Herman HS, Rahman S, Zahn J, Leider J, Calderon Y. Bundled HIV and Hepatitis C Testing in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Trial. West J Emerg Med. 2018;19(6):1049–56.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    Reiter PL, Shoben AB, McDonough D, Ruffin MT, Steinau M, Unger ER, et al. Results of a Pilot Study of a Mail-Based Human Papillomavirus Self-Testing Program for Underscreened Women From Appalachian Ohio. Sex Transm Dis. 2019;46(3):185–90.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    Barbee LA, Tat S, Dhanireddy S, Marrazzo JM. Implementation and Operational Research: Effectiveness and Patient Acceptability of a Sexually Transmitted Infection Self-Testing Program in an HIV Care Setting. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1999. 2016 01;72(2):e26–31.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.↵
    de la Fuente L, Rosales-Statkus ME, Hoyos J, Pulido J, Santos S, Bravo MJ, et al. Are participants in a street-based HIV testing program able to perform their own rapid test and interpret the results? PloS One. 2012;7(10):e46555.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    Gómez-Ayerbe C, Martínez-Sanz J, Muriel A, Pérez Elías P, Moreno A, Barea R, et al. Impact of a structured HIV testing program in a hospital emergency department and a primary care center. PloS One. 2019;14(8):e0220375.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    Harmon JL, Collins-Ogle M, Bartlett JA, Thompson J, Barroso J. Integrating routine HIV screening into a primary care setting in rural North Carolina. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care JANAC. 2014 Feb;25(1):70–82.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.↵
    Krueger A, Dietz P, Van Handel M, Belcher L, Johnson AS. Estimates of CDC-Funded and National HIV Diagnoses: A Comparison by Demographic and HIV-related Factors. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(12):2961–5.
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.↵
    Lederman E, Blackwell A, Tomkus G, Rios M, Stephen B, Rivera A, et al. Opt-out Testing Pilot for Sexually Transmitted Infections Among Immigrant Detainees at 2 Immigration and Customs Enforcement Health Service Corps-Staffed Detention Facilities, 2018. Public Health Rep Wash DC 1974. 2020 Aug;135(1_suppl):82S–89S.
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.↵
    Miller RL, Boyer CB, Chiaramonte D, Lindeman P, Chutuape K, Cooper-Walker B, et al. Evaluating Testing Strategies for Identifying Youths With HIV Infection and Linking Youths to Biomedical and Other Prevention Services. JAMA Pediatr. 2017 01;171(6):532–7.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    Myers JJ, Maiorana A, Chaturvedi SD, Guilin V, Buisker T, Khumalo-Sakutukwa G, et al. Uptake and Outcomes Associated with Implementation of a Community-Based Voluntary HIV Counseling and Testing Program in Antigua and Barbuda. J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care. 2016;15(5):385–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    Ndege S, Washington S, Kaaria A, Prudhomme-O’Meara W, Were E, Nyambura M, et al. HIV Prevalence and Antenatal Care Attendance among Pregnant Women in a Large Home-Based HIV Counseling and Testing Program in Western Kenya. PloS One. 2016;11(1):e0144618.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.↵
    Nglazi MD, van Schaik N, Kranzer K, Lawn SD, Wood R, Bekker L-G. An incentivized HIV counseling and testing program targeting hard-to-reach unemployed men in Cape Town, South Africa. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1999. 2012 Mar 1;59(3):e28–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    Osorio G, Hoenigl M, Quartarolo J, Barger K, Morris SR, Reed SL, et al. Evaluation of opt-out inpatient HIV screening at an urban teaching hospital. AIDS Care. 2017;29(8):1014–8.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.↵
    Porru S, Carta A, Monaco MGL, Verlato G, Battaggia A, Parpaiola M, et al. Health Surveillance and Response to SARS-CoV-2 Mass Testing in Health Workers of a Large Italian Hospital in Verona, Veneto. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 15;17(14).
  45. 45.↵
    Ramirez-Avila L, Nixon K, Noubary F, Giddy J, Losina E, Walensky RP, et al. Routine HIV testing in adolescents and young adults presenting to an outpatient clinic in Durban, South Africa. PloS One. 2012;7(9):e45507.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    Scognamiglio P, Chiaradia G, Giovanetti M, Albertini E, Camposeragna A, Farinella M, et al. HIV rapid testing in community and outreach sites: results of a nationwide demonstration project in Italy. BMC Public Health. 2018 18;18(1):748.
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.↵
    Sicsic J, Saint-Lary O, Rouveix E, Pelletier-Fleury N. Impact of a primary care national policy on HIV screening in France: a longitudinal analysis between 2006 and 2013. Br J Gen Pract J R Coll Gen Pract. 2016 Dec;66(653):e920–9.
    OpenUrl
  48. 48.↵
    Telford CT, Onwubiko U, Holland D, Turner K, Prieto J, Smith S, et al. Preventing COVID-19 Outbreaks in Long-Term Care Facilities Through Preemptive Testing of Residents and Staff Members — Fulton County, Georgia, March–May 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69(37):1296–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    Whalen M, Hansoti B, Hsieh Y-H, Saheed M, Signer D, Rothman R. Translation of Public Health Theory into Nursing Practice: Optimization of a Nurse-Driven HIV Testing Program in the Emergency Department. J Emerg Nurs. 2018;44(5):446–52.
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.↵
    White DAE, Cheung PT, Scribner AN, Frazee BW. A comparison of HIV testing in the emergency department and urgent care. J Emerg Med. 2010 Oct;39(4):521–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    Baggett TP, Racine MW, Lewis E, De Las Nueces D, O’Connell JJ, Bock B, et al. Addressing COVID-19 Among People Experiencing Homelessness: Description, Adaptation, and Early Findings of a Multiagency Response in Boston. Public Health Rep Wash DC 1974. 2020 Jun 9;33354920936227.
  52. 52.↵
    Blackstock OJ, King JR, Mason RD, Lee CC, Mannheimer SB. Evaluation of a rapid HIV testing initiative in an urban, hospital-based dental clinic. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2010 Dec;24(12):781–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    Bradshaw D, Rae C, Rayment M, Turner N, Turner R, Pickard G, et al. HIV/HCV/HBV testing in the emergency department: a feasibility and seroprevalence study. HIV Med. 2018;19 Suppl 1:52–7.
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.↵
    Calderon Y, Chou K, Cowan E, Rhee JY, Mathew S, Ghosh R, et al. Analysis of HIV testing acceptance and risk factors of an adolescent cohort using emergency department-based multimedia HIV testing and counseling. Sex Transm Dis. 2013 Aug;40(8):624–8.
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.↵
    Haines CJ, Uwazuoke K, Zussman B, Parrino T, Laguerre R, Foster J. Pediatric emergency department-based rapid HIV testing: adolescent attitudes and preferences. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2011 Jan;27(1):13–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    Hsieh Y-H, Beck KJ, Rothman RE, Gauvey-Kern M, Woodfield A, Peterson S, et al. Factors associated with patients who prefer HIV self-testing over health professional testing in an emergency department-based rapid HIV screening program. Int J STD AIDS. 2017;28(11):1124–9.
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.
    Hubbard SJ, Ma M, Wahnich A, Clarke A, Myers JE, Saleh LD. #Testathome: Implementing 2 Phases of a HIV Self-Testing Program Through Community-Based Organization Partnerships in New York City. Sex Transm Dis. 2020 May;47(5S Suppl 1):S48–52.
    OpenUrl
  58. 58.↵
    Imbert E, Kinley PM, Scarborough A, Cawley C, Sankaran M, Cox SN, et al. Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outbreak in a San Francisco Homeless Shelter. Clin Infect Dis [Internet]. 2020 Aug 3 [cited 2021 Jan 12];(ciaa1071). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1071
  59. 59.↵
    Klein PW, Martin IBK, Quinlivan EB, Gay CL, Leone PA. Missed opportunities for concurrent HIV-STD testing in an academic emergency department. Public Health Rep Wash DC 1974. 2014 Feb;129 Suppl 1:12–20.
    OpenUrl
  60. 60.↵
    Matulionytė R, Žagminas K, Balčiūnaitė E, Matulytė E, Paulauskienė R, Bajoriūnienė A, et al. Routine HIV testing program in the University Infectious Diseases Centre in Lithuania: a four-year analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Jan 7;19(1):21.
    OpenUrl
  61. 61.↵
    Musarandega R, Mutede B, Mahomva A, Nyamayaro W, Mushavi A, Lindan C, et al. Scaling up Pediatric HIV Testing by Incorporating Provider-Initiated HIV Testing Into all Child Health Services in Hurungwe District, Zimbabwe. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1999. 2018 01;77(1):78–85.
    OpenUrl
  62. 62.↵
    Nunn A, Zaller N, Cornwall A, Mayer KH, Moore E, Dickman S, et al. Low perceived risk and high HIV prevalence among a predominantly African American population participating in Philadelphia’s Rapid HIV testing program. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2011 Apr;25(4):229–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.
    Qvist T, Cowan SA, Graugaard C, Helleberg M. High linkage to care in a community-based rapid HIV testing and counseling project among men who have sex with men in Copenhagen. Sex Transm Dis. 2014 Mar;41(3):209–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    Schumann C, Kahn D, Broaddus M, Dougherty J, Elderbrook M, Vergeront J, et al. Implementing a Standardized Social Networks Testing Strategy in a Low HIV Prevalence Jurisdiction. AIDS Behav. 2019 Jan;23(Suppl 1):41–7.
    OpenUrl
  65. 65.↵
    Spaulding AC, Kim MJ, Corpening KT, Carpenter T, Watlington P, Bowden CJ. Establishing an HIV Screening Program Led by Staff Nurses in a County Jail. J Public Health Manag Pract JPHMP. 2015 Dec;21(6):538–45.
    OpenUrl
  66. 66.
    Wachira J, Ndege S, Koech J, Vreeman RC, Ayuo P, Braitstein P. HIV testing uptake and prevalence among adolescents and adults in a large home-based HIV testing program in Western Kenya. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1999. 2014 Feb 1;65(2):e58–66.
    OpenUrl
  67. 67.↵
    Williams-Roberts H, Chang Y, Losina E, Freedberg KA, Walensky RP. Frequent HIV testing among participants of a routine HIV testing program. Virulence. 2010 Apr;1(2):68– 71.
    OpenUrl
  68. 68.↵
    Beckwith CG, Bazerman L, Cornwall AH, Patry E, Poshkus M, Fu J, et al. An evaluation of a routine opt-out rapid HIV testing program in a Rhode Island jail. AIDS Educ Prev Off Publ Int Soc AIDS Educ. 2011 Jun;23(3 Suppl):96–109.
    OpenUrl
  69. 69.↵
    Bischof JJ, Bell LL, Pierce JK, Cooper KL, Heine AD, Quinlivan EB, et al. Detecting HIV among persons accompanying patients to an infectious diseases clinic. Sex Transm Dis. 2015 Jan;42(1):54–6.
    OpenUrl
  70. 70.↵
    Lolekha R, Kullerk N, Wolfe MI, Klumthanom K, Singhagowin T, Pattanasin S, et al. Assessment of a couples HIV counseling and testing program for pregnant women and their partners in antenatal care (ANC) in 7 provinces, Thailand. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2014 Dec 24;14:39.
    OpenUrl
  71. 71.↵
    Sitlinger AP, Lindsell CJ, Ruffner AH, Wayne DB, Hart KW, Trott AT, et al. Preliminary program evaluation of emergency department HIV prevention counseling. Ann Emerg Med. 2011 Jul;58(1 Suppl 1):S120-125.e1-3.
    OpenUrl
  72. 72.↵
    Barbee LA, Tat S, Dhanireddy S, Marrazzo JM. Effectiveness and Patient Acceptability of a Sexually Transmitted Infection Self-testing Program in an HIV Care Setting. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1999. 2016 Jun 1;72(2):e26–31.
    OpenUrl
  73. 73.↵
    Roederer T, Fourrey E, Mollo B, Vanhomwegen J, Simons E, Torre C, et al. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among people experiencing homelessness. 2020 May [cited 2021 Feb 10]; Available from: https://fieldresearch.msf.org/handle/10144/619810
  74. 74.↵
    Katikireddi S, Higgins M, Smith KE, Williams G. Health inequalities: the need to move beyond bad behaviours. J Epidemiol Community Health [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2020 Oct 23];67(9). Available from: https://jech.bmj.com/content/67/9/715.short?casa_token=abJy1qFuztIAAAAA:F2iy1dH10GUyNuDxki1vb793WoCrBageO3vOj1iNlHUPUI4BSPEOSE_9lUAEIqZXShRA-UX-czeU
  75. 75.↵
    McLaren L, McIntyre L. Conceptualizing child care as a population health intervention: can a strong case be made for a universal approach in Canada, a liberal welfare regime? Crit Public Health. 2014 Oct 2;24(4):418–28.
    OpenUrl
  76. 76.↵
    Mody A, Pfeifauf K, Bradley C, Fox B, Hlatshwayo MG, Ross W, et al. Understanding Drivers of COVID-19 Racial Disparities: A Population-Level Analysis of COVID-19 Testing among Black and White Populations. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2020 Dec 14;
  77. 77.
    WHO. COVID-19 strategy update - 14 April 2020 [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Jan 20]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/covid-19-strategy-update14-april-2020
  78. 78.
    WHO. Commitment and call to action: Global collaboration to accelerate new COVID-19 health technologies [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Jan 20]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news/item/24-04-2020-commitment-and-call-to-action-global-collaboration-to-accelerate-new-covid-19-health-technologies
  79. 79.↵
    Wilkins Consuelo H., Friedman Elisa C., Churchwell André L., Slayton Jennifer M., Jones Pam, Pulley Jill M., et al. A Systems Approach to Addressing Covid-19 Health Inequities. NEJM Catal [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jan 20];2(1). Available from: https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/CAT.20.0374
  80. 80.↵
    Anne G, Émilie T, Kareen N, Ginette L, Valéry R. Adapting a health equity tool to meet professional needs (Québec, Canada). Health Promot Int. 2019 Dec 1;34(6):e71–83.
    OpenUrl
  81. 81.
    Guichard A, Hébert C, Nour K, Lafontaine G, Tardieu É, Ridde V. Adaptation et conditions d’utilisation d’un outil d’analyse des interventions au regard des inégalités sociales de santé. Santé Publique. 2018 May 1;S2:121.
    OpenUrl
  82. 82.↵
    Pauly B, Martin W, Perkin K, van Roode T, Kwan A, Patterson T, et al. Critical considerations for the practical utility of health equity tools: a concept mapping study. Int J Equity Health. 2018 23;17(1):48.
    OpenUrl
  83. 83.↵
    Plamondon KM. A tool to assess alignment between knowledge and action for health equity. BMC Public Health. 2020 Feb 12;20(1):224.
    OpenUrl
  84. 84.↵
    Ridde V, Malle Samb O. La place de l’équité dans la formation des professionnels de santé au Burkina Faso. In: La place de l’équité dans la formation des professionnels de santé au Burkina Faso [Internet]. University of Laval Press; 2010 [cited 2021 Feb 10]. p. 93–120. Available from: http://www.equitesante.org/wp-content/plugins/zotpress/lib/request/request.dl.php?api_user_id=1627688&dlkey=AJCR9G9X&content_type=application/pdf
  85. 85.↵
    Marmot M, Goldblatt P, Allen J. Fair Society Healthy Lives (The Marmot Review) [Internet]. Institute of Health Equity; 2010 [cited 2021 Jan 20]. Available from: http://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/resources-reports/fair-society-healthy-lives-the-marmot-review
  86. 86.↵
    Mitchell S, Cockcroft A, Lamothe G, Andersson N. Equity in HIV testing: evidence from a cross-sectional study in ten Southern African countries. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2010 Sep 13;10(1):23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Posted March 03, 2021.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
A rapid review of equity considerations in large-scale testing campaigns during infectious disease epidemics
Katarina Ost, Louise Duquesne, Claudia Duguay, Lola Traverson, Isadora Mathevet, Valéry Ridde, Kate Zinszer
medRxiv 2021.02.22.21252205; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.22.21252205
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area