PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Barbee, L A
AU  - Dhanireddy, S
AU  - Tat, S
AU  - Radford, A
AU  - Marrazzo, J M
TI  - O08.3 Barriers to Bacterial STI Screening of HIV+ Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) in HIV Primary Care Settings
AID  - 10.1136/sextrans-2013-051184.0127
DP  - 2013 Jul 01
TA  - Sexually Transmitted Infections
PG  - A41--A41
VI  - 89
IP  - Suppl 1
4099  - http://sti.bmj.com/content/89/Suppl_1/A41.1.short
4100  - http://sti.bmj.com/content/89/Suppl_1/A41.1.full
SO  - Sex Transm Infect2013 Jul 01; 89
AB  - Background In the U.S., bacterial STI disproportionately affect HIV+ MSM. Screening for STI in HIV care settings remains suboptimal, but barriers have not been fully elucidated. Methods As part of a CDC initiative to increase STI screening among HIV+ MSM in care, we sought to (1) define current screening coverage, and (2) identify patient and provider related barriers to screening at the largest HIV clinic in the Pacific Northwest. We extracted aggregated testing data from electronic medical records, and created separate anonymous surveys for patients (written) and providers (electronic). All male clinic attendees seen during a 3-week period in 2012 were invited to participate; 110 MSM contributed. Of 33 clinic providers invited, 28 (85%) responded; 82% (23/28) were attending physicians. Results From March 2011-September 2012, among 1,379 HIV+ MSM engaged in care, 38% had extragenital testing, 40% urine testing, and 80% syphilis serology at least once. Of patients surveyed, 71% reported having sex in the last 2 months. 31% described seeking STI screening outside of the HIV clinic; of those, reported reasons included: being “easier” (42%), preferring “anonymity” (21%), wanting “more frequent screening” (16%). Providers reported being unfamiliar with current CDC screening guidelines (32%) and uncomfortable with discussing sexual practises and performing a genital exam (21%). Many (68%) stated time was a major barrier. Eleven (40%) providers cited patients’ reluctance as a barrier, reporting common patient excuses including: being unprepared (55%), testing elsewhere (82%) and preferring same-gender provider (27%). Asked about potential solutions, providers chose easier access to electronic-tracking of testing results (82%), access to results from other clinics (71%) and self-collection of specimens (57%). Conclusion At a large academic HIV primary care clinic, STI screening was substandard, with providers reporting numerous barriers. Interventions to address these obstacles include implementation of an STI self-testing programme, and enhanced education for providers.