ArticleFrontiers in public health2023
Increasing and sustaining blood-borne virus screening in Spain and Portugal throughout the COVID-19 pandemic: a multi-center quality improvement intervention.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes 10 Years After Implementing an Emergency Department Opt-out Bloodborne Virus Screening Program.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Around 57,000 people in Spain and Portugal currently living with HIV or chronic hepatitis C are unaware of their infection. The COVID-19 pandemic severely disrupted screening efforts for these infections. We designed an intervention to increase and sustain opportunistic blood-borne virus (BBV) screening and linkage to care (SLTC) by implementing the TEST model. Methods: The Plan Do Study Act (PDSA) method of quality improvement (QI) was implemented in 8 healthcare organizations (HCOs), including four hospitals, two clusters of community health centers, and two community-based organizations (CBOs). Baseline assessment included a review of BBV SLTC practices, testing volume, and results 12 months before the intervention. Changes in BBV testing rates over time were measured before, during, and after the COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020. A mixed ANOVA model was used to analyze the possible effect on testing volumes among HCOs over the three study periods. Intervention: BBV testing was integrated into normal clinical flow in all HCOs using existing clinical infrastructure and staff. Electronic health record (EHR) systems were modified whenever possible to streamline screening processes, implement systemic institutional policy changes, and promote QI. Results: Two years after the launch of the intervention in screening practices, testing volumes increased by 116%, with formal healthcare settings recording larger increases than CBOs. The start of the COVID-19 lockdowns was accompanied by a global 60% decrease in testing in all HCOs. Screening emergency department patients or using EHR systems to automate screening showed the highest resilience and lowest reduction in testing. HCOs recovered 77% of their testing volume once the lockdowns were lifted, with CBOs making the fullest recovery. Globally, enhanced screening techniques enabled HCOs to diagnose a total of 1,860 individuals over the research period. Conclusions: Implementation of the TEST model enabled HCOs to increase and sustain BBV screening, even during COVID-19 lockdowns. Although improvement in screening was noted in all HCOs, additional work is needed to develop strong patient linkage to care models in challenging times, such as global pandemics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.