Practicing provider-initiated HIV testing in high prevalence settings: consent concerns and missed preventive opportunities

HIV counselling and testing (HCT) services are a crucial part of prevention and are necessary as a prerequisite for supporting, caring and providing treatment to the HIV infected. Preventive counselling gives individuals an opportunity to receive relevant information, to correct misconceptions about HIV, to assess risk and to motivate behaviour change if necessary [1, 2]. Preventive effects of the voluntary counselling and testing (VCT)-package (risk-reduction counselling in relation to testing) are reasonably well documented [3, 4], but to what extent knowledge of ones own status alone leads to behaviour change is difficult to address in ethically acceptable research efforts. HCT also has further been noted to have the potential to encourage openness, hence contributing to the reduction of fear and stigma in society [1, 2, 5]. Despite the assumed benefits and scaling-up of HCT services over the last decade the demand for the services has been disappointingly low in countries with the most serious epidemics [6–9]. This has resulted in efforts to establish alternative HIV testing models such as the provider-initiated (PITC) model, which differs substantially from the established client-initiated model.

Client-initiated HIV counselling and testing is commonly referred to as voluntary counselling and testing (VCT). It is motivated by an individual's right to know his or her HIV status, and it takes place when an individual seeks counselling and testing at a facility that offers the services. This type of HIV testing and counselling service is offered widely, mainly through facilities integrated in health settings, mobile services and in stand-alone facilities that are located away from health care facilities such as community-based settings and night services [5, 9–15]. Provider-initiated testing in contrast to the client initiated testing is recommended by a health provider to people attending a health facility [15]. This approach to testing can be offered with an opt-in or an opt-out approach, the latter being prominent in specialized programmes such as prevention of mother-to-child-transmission programmes (PMTCT) [15]. The difference between the two is that with the opt-in approach patients need to affirmatively agree to test before the test is conducted, whereas in opt-out approaches clients must actively decline after the pre-test information is offered, if they do not want the test to be performed [15]. Offering testing to all individuals seeking health care services is assumed to increase HIV test rates and thus improve access to treatment. HIV testing has been recommended for all pregnant women, but with a preservation of the woman's right to decline or opt- out. Those who decline are however encouraged to undergo HIV testing at a subsequent visit [15].

The new guidelines recommend pre-test information in place of pre-test counselling when practicing PITC [15]. However, critics argue that individuals tested for HIV must be allowed to evaluate the information provided to them during individual pre-test counselling sessions, and come to their own conclusion regarding whether or not they wish to be tested [16, 17]. This is deemed vital for ensuring trust in the health services not the least in the prevention, care and treatment of HIV. A trusting relationship between the health care provider and patient (interpersonal trust) within the context of HIV testing has been seen as essential in enhancing the quality of the interaction and for constructively encouraging necessary behaviour change [18].

The increase in HIV test rates documented in certain settings has been partly attributed to a rapid scale-up of provider-initiated testing services [19–21]. However, the roll-out of this testing model has been criticised from an ethical and human rights perspective for paving the way to neglect of informed consent [16, 17, 22], and for reducing the amount of counselling that accompanies the HIV test [15, 23]. Despite the early voicing of ethical and human rights concerns related to the provider-initiated model of HIV testing, there is little empirical evidence from Africa related to client experiences with this model of testing. This study is an attempt to explore the perceptions and experiences of the testing services with a particular emphasis on the provider initiated opt-out HIV testing as practised at Antenatal Clinics (ANC) where the PMTCT programme is located. Moreover we investigated the exposure to HIV testing in the adult populations in three African districts: Malindi, Kenya; Mbarali, Tanzania; and Kapiri Mposhi in Zambia, where the EU-funded multi-country project, REACT (Response to A Countable priority setting for Trust in health systems) is currently implemented. The project draws upon the ethical framework 'Accountability for Reasonableness' (AFR), for legitimate and fair priority setting. It is applied to provide decision makers with guidance to enhance trust, quality and equity in health systems [24].

The population-based survey conducted in the selected study districts in the three countries revealed marked country differences in HIV testing exposures. These differences are primarily linked to differences in the roll-out of the provider-initiated opt-out approach to testing in the PMTCT programs at the ANCs.

Our findings indicate that the manner in which the provider initiated opt-out testing model is being interpreted and implemented has serious unintended negative effects. Firstly a reduced focus on counselling in general was found, and limited or no preventive counselling taking place for persons with HIV negative test results was particularly brought up. Secondly the provider-initiated opt-out strategy was perceived to impede the much-valued consent process inherent in pre-test counselling. The practice was experienced as an obstruction to choice as it was considered impossible to opt-out of the test. Thirdly, the scaling-up of the provider initiated opt-out model through PMTCT was found to result in striking gender differences in knowledge of personal HIV status with consequent burden on women. The survey revealed striking gendered differences between countries related to HIV testing, with a female to male ratio of 1.6 in Malindi and Kapiri Mposhi districts, the districts that presented a high exposure in HIV testing as part of PMTCT. No gender difference appeared in Mbarali district where the exposure to PMTCT was relatively low. The study revealed that the strategy was perceived to add an unreasonable burden on women who increasingly have to communicate the test results to their partners when they are pregnant as well as recruit them to go for testing.

The provider-initiated opt-out testing model has been described as successful in achieving higher numbers of individuals to test [21, 36–39]. Our results indicate that substantially more women seem to have been tested in areas where this model had been scaled up. The provider initiated testing and counselling guidelines, recommend that post test counselling is performed after an HIV test [15]. On implementation, our results revealed however, that there was reduced focus on counselling during HIV testing at the ANC settings. The informants expressed the view that no or limited preventive counselling took place for persons with negative test results within the new approach, as summarised in Figure 3. The expansion of testing, which has been closely linked to rapidly-increasing financial support for treatment, has led many countries to shift their focus towards treatment with less focus on HIV prevention [40]. Post-test counselling for persons with a negative test result offers vital opportunities for prevention. It gives health care providers the opportunity to assess the degree of risk related to the client's lifestyle and enables him/her to define and communicate potential behaviour change and ways to sustain this behaviour change [2, 41].

Despite the expressed importance of post-test counselling for prevention by our informants, the findings suggest that this was often lacking for people with negative test results. This is in our view an alarming development, and implies increasing numbers of missed opportunities for prevention, as some recent studies have indicated. A study from South Africa showed that pregnant women had four times the transmission risk of other women [42] indicating the importance of reaching this particular category with messages focusing on prevention of horizontal transmission. The increased sexual risk-taking that followed a negative test result in a cohort conducted in Zimbabwe [43] moreover indicates the potential dangers of leaving out individuals who have tested HIV negative without proper preventive counselling. In line with this argument a recent population-based open cohort study related to behaviour change associated with VCT showed substantial risk reduction, particularly among women, regardless of their HIV status [44].

The finding of limited pre-test counselling in our study is consistent with other publications that have raised the issue of neglected counselling within this testing model [10, 16, 22]. Counselling is one of the three Cs' (consent, confidentiality and counselling) perceived as core in HIV testing [45]. Given that counsellors are properly trained to assist in the process of attaining consent, pre-test counselling plays a fundamental role. It promotes the individual's autonomy by offering an opportunity to make an informed decision that is critical for HIV testing [2, 41]. Individual autonomy is an important element of 'responsiveness'; a fundamental goal of health systems [46, 47] and critically important in HIV testing [48].The implementation of the provider initiated opt-out testing model perceived as mandatory as reflected in the formulation " it is a must" by our informants, not only contradicts the current global guidelines, which emphasize the rights of clients to decline or opt-out of HIV testing when offered [15, 45] but also national guidelines on HIV testing [5]. Similar concerns have been raised in Botswana. Even though high proportions were in favour of the opt-out testing model, a majority (68%) felt that it was not possible to refuse a test [49, 50]. Studies and reports from Kenya and Uganda reveal that women seeking maternal care were not provided with the opportunity to give informed consent, nor counselled prior to or after testing [51–53].

Such scenarios have created an important discussion related to the classical dilemmas on how to balance public health benefits with the individual good. One major argument has been that the benefit of mandatory testing in preserving human life (as the HIV positive individual gets the opportunity to receive treatment) outweighs arguments related to human rights and autonomy [54]. This argument has gained grounds in the context of prevention of vertical transmission. It is in our view important to be aware of what is lost in the process when PITC models are not implemented with caution and with fundamental respect for the key principles on which it is based. The provider initiated opt-out testing has thus substantially increased access to prevention of vertical transmission of the infection [21, 55], which was one of the main intentions behind the changes in testing approaches [2, 56] in ANC settings. While there is increasing demonstration of success related to the provider initiated opt-out model in terms of testing coverage, we argue that the ways in which the PITC model is implemented calls for a consideration of aspects beyond the proportions exposed to testing and the proportions offered treatment.

Our findings on HIV testing exposure have furthermore indicated unforeseen inequity challenges emerging from the fact that with scaling up of the provider initiated opt-out testing in PMTCT programs; women are exposed to testing to a much larger extent than men. Previous studies have demonstrated that the mere act of being tested for HIV can be enough to subject a woman to domestic violence [51]. The wide recognition of potential adverse effects of disclosure to husbands adds seriously to the burden of knowing ones HIV status [16, 57]. It has been demonstrated that women with HIV positive test results may be confronted with severe violence that includes physical and verbal abuse also from staff at the health facilities [51]. In Kenya such challenges have led to the development of a tribunal that aims to handle legal HIV-related issues including discrimination against people living with HIV [58]. With the adverse, negative effects upon women that have been documented upon receiving an HIV test result, the enormous numbers presently being tested through the opt-out approaches in PMTCT programs raise serious ethical concerns. We argue that implementation of this testing approach should include partners to avoid venturing into a dangerous field which could lead women to choose not to disclose their status. A review carried out on rates barriers and outcomes of disclosure indicated that higher rates of women choose not to disclose (up to 86%). However it must be noted that majority of those who actually disclosed their HIV status reported supportive reactions from their partners [59]

In a context where there is the challenge of under-utilization of skilled attendance at birth services [60], confidence and trust are values at stake in the maternal health services. Testing pregnant women for HIV without their consent and without counselling to prepare them with a minimum of knowledge on how to live with either a HIV negative or a HIV positive status, can further diminish their confidence in the health providers and the health system, and can drive them away from vital maternity-related services. The weakened image of the health providers is part of a tendency also influenced by new public health management approaches [23].The challenges faced by health providers in implementing the new testing model may certainly to some extent, be attributed to the weak health systems in the region [61]. Sub Saharan Africa suffers a high burden of disease and the ratios of health workers per population are extremely low [62]. In contexts where the health system is grappling with limited resources, poor provider behaviour to clients has also been outlined among the many challenges facing HIV service delivery [61].

Unlike a VCT setting where very few seek testing services, the ANC environments are characterised by large numbers of the women as the main purpose is to test for mother and child related issues and not to test for HIV. Within such a scenario, health care providers may be overwhelmed by the high numbers of clients they receive for testing, hence influencing the manner in which the testing services are offered. This is an important part of the context in which health care providers work and coming mothers receive their HIV testing results, including little time for serious consideration of opt out processes of extended educational sessions. We thus argue that the 'blame' cannot primarily be placed on the health care workers. Our data e.g. reveals that pre and post test counselling are sufficiently observed at VCT. Strengthening the health system therefore seems to be vital if PITC implementation is to take place in the manner it was intended to. In this regard, involving lay counsellors in the testing and counselling services in these busy clinics as done in Botswana could be considered to reduce the burden on the health workers [39].

We argue that the challenges faced when implementing the provider initiated opt-out approach to HIV testing in many low income contexts, call for a renewed resource and rights-based momentum. Accountability for reasonableness, an ethically-based framework for fair decision-making and the fair priority-setting employed in the larger project of which this study is a part, draws our attention to the importance of trust in health systems [63]. The framework holds that securing trust in health systems will require approaches and arrangements that in a fundamental sense promote fairness and equity in a manner that respects human rights. From such a perspective implementing PITC for HIV in ways that compromises the right to obtain preventive information, and, for pregnant women, the right to opt-out or bypass consultation with their spouses are highly problematic. Trust between client and provider is critically important in an HIV context where vital but sensitive messages are to be communicated [18]. However, this cannot be secured through approaches implemented in a manner that threaten what has been considered as key in HIV testing; namely the possibility of receiving preventive information. The concern related to the extra burdens placed on women in vulnerable states of pregnancy adds to this scenario. We thus argue that HIV testing service delivery needs to be strengthened so that the trust and momentum that has been gained through the client-initiated services is retained. Respect for individual autonomy in HIV testing is essential as seen from the fundamental responsiveness goal of health systems [46, 47].

Adopting a concurrent triangulation mixed methods design in this study reduces the potential weaknesses of using a single method. This design was chosen in order to capture both population testing exposure levels as well as people's experiences with the testing strategies. The data that was generated offered an opportunity to make inter-country comparisons, and in particular to compare setting differences with regard to levels of HIV testing exposure. The data collection tools in the three districts were similar in terms of indicator questions (the survey) and guidelines for the qualitative data collection. The additional qualitative component that was added in one of the districts (Malindi) elicited further information regarding experiences and perceptions of the provider initiated opt-out testing model. This added component strengthened the data as the additional FGDs and IDIs also enabled us to capture the perceptions and personal experiences of our informants at the community level, in addition to the facility-based information collected from all three districts.

As this additional study was carried out in 2009, a time when the PITC model had been implemented in most settings, it enabled us to capture experiences and perceptions of this new HIV testing model. However, conducting this study only in one district (Malindi) puts restrictions on the possibility for inter-country comparisons with regard to experiences and perceptions related to the provider initiated opt-out HIV testing models. Recruiting the respondents in this additional study (Malindi) from the community did not always reap direct experiences with the ANC testing; hence, further studies where respondents are recruited at the ANC settings could be considered. Our findings also suggest that the PITC model could have been practiced in a manner that seemed acceptable in the other two districts. This finding concurs with a recent study from Mbale district in Uganda [64]. Nevertheless, it is likely that, at the time, the data was collected in these settings (Kapiri Mposhi and Mbarali) the PITC opt-out model had not been scaled up extensively. We have reason to believe that the findings of this study are applicable in many other settings as similar concerns are raised in recent studies conducted in Kenya and Uganda, and concerns documented from Tanzania, on practices of testing pregnant women without their consent or proper counselling [50, 52, 53, 65].

The manner in which the new provider initiated opt-out HIV testing model is being implemented was found to have resulted in high neglect of pre- and post test counselling. This could hamper the inherent preventive potential in HIV testing contexts. Moreover, the lack of counselling was found to hinder people's ability to decline testing, hence raising serious ethical concerns. Furthermore, the new testing model appeared to add an unreasonable burden to pregnant women, in that the approach is implemented on a large scale primarily among women in the PMTCT programs, who are made responsible to recruit their spouses to go for a test. Further research is needed to: explore challenges from the perspective of health care workers and how to strengthen the health systems and in particular the ante natal clinics, so as to effectively implement the new testing model, assess how the opt-out testing approaches are implemented in other high HIV prevalence settings and to explore further how 'Accountability for reasonableness' or other rights-based frameworks can be drawn upon in ways that ensure that new strategies attempting to improve access HIV services are implemented in a manner that retains trust and a minimum of the patients' rights. Our findings indicates that there is an urgent need to reconsider the manner in which the opt-out approach to HIV testing is presently being implemented in order to protect each client's autonomy, to protect the right to access HIV prevention, and to protect pregnant women from an unreasonable additional burden.

¹ s/he: in Swahili there is no separate word for she and he