Nothing about us without us: considerations for ensuring rights-affirming index case testing for young people

Do No Harm: A Review of Social Harms Associated with HIV Partner Notification

INTRODUCTION

HIV partner notification services (PNS) are highly effective in identifying people living with HIV, but the complex risks and repercussions associated with HIV testing and disclosure must be examined. The benefits of assisting people to learn their HIV status and link with treatment or prevention based on their results must be considered alongside the risks of adverse events or social harms.

METHODS

The study team systematically searched the PubMed, EBSCO, and Web of Science electronic databases (2015-2021), as well as abstracts from the International AIDS Society Conference (2016-2020) and the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (2015-2020). Fifteen studies and 1 conference abstract met the inclusion criteria for this narrative review.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Incidence of social harms across studies ranged from 0%-6.3%, with the higher range occurring among women with a previous history of intimate partner violence (IPV). The majority of the studies (69%) reported that less than or equal to 1% of participants experienced social harms as a result of PNS. Social harms included relationship dissolution, IPV, and loss of financial support.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from a limited set of studies suggests that although social harms associated with HIV partner notification do occur, they are rare. Considering the rapid global scale-up of PNS, additional research and oversight are needed to provide countries with recommended minimum standards to support providers, clients, and their partners with safe partner notification.

Intensified Assisted Partner Notification Implementation in Botswana Increased Partner Identification but Not HIV Case-Finding: Findings Highlight the Need for Improved Data Monitoring

BACKGROUND

How to implement and monitor assisted partner services (APS) programs for HIV infection as they go to scale-up is uncertain.

SETTING

Forty Botswana Ministry of Health clinics, 2018-2020.

METHODS

We compared 2 APS implementation phases. During phase 1, training, supervision, and data collection were minimal; only newly diagnosed HIV-positive persons received APS, and APS recipients notified partners themselves or jointly with counselors. Phase 2 included the following: intensified training and supervision; APS provision to previously diagnosed, untreated persons; structured interview records; and counselors offering to notify partners directly.

RESULTS

Five thousand one hundred seventy-five and 1265 newly diagnosed HIV-positive persons received APS in phases 1 and 2, respectively. Comparing the phases, program reach (percentage of newly diagnosed cases receiving APS) increased from 86% to 93%, the contact index (sex partners named per case) increased from 0.85 to 1.32, and the percentage of cases with an identified HIV-positive partner increased from 12.6% to 60% (P < 0.001, all outcomes). The testing index (partners tested per case) was higher in phase 1 (0.56 vs. 0.45, P = 0.05), whereas the case-finding index (partners testing HIV-positive per case) did not change (0.13 vs. 0.14, P = 0.50). Five hundred seventy-eight (76%) of 756 HIV-positive partners in phase 2 were previously diagnosed; cases identified only 15% of these partners as HIV-positive at their initial interview.

CONCLUSIONS

APS scale-up increased reach, the contact index, and the identification of previously diagnosed sex partners but not HIV case-finding. Improved, more comprehensive data likely explain the absence of increased case-finding, highlighting the need for more comprehensive data collection.