Table 3 Summary of key outcome findings
From: Integration of HIV testing services into family planning services: a systematic review
Study | Outcome category from PICO question | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1) Uptake of, counseling for, or offer of HIV testing services | 5) Client satisfaction / perceptions of service quality | ||||
Birdthistle et al., 2014 [25] |  | Control sites (n = 4) | Intervention sites (n = 4) | Not measured | |
Proportion of visits where women received HIV counseling and testing | |||||
  2009 | 5–30% | 3–27% | |||
  2010 | 2–14% | 8–16% | |||
  2012 | 6–58% | 3–15% | |||
Proportion of visits where women received HIV/STI services and MCH services | |||||
  2009 | 11–49% | 9–33% | |||
  2010 | 3–27% | 2–21% | |||
  2012 | 14–44% | 10–17% | |||
Brunie et al., 2016 [26] |  | Control group (n = 119) | Intervention (n = 137) | p-value | Not measured |
Ever tested for HIV, n (%) | 113 (94.96%) | 136 (99.27%) | 0.002 | ||
Number of tests in the past 12 months, n (%) |  |  | 0.043 | ||
  0 | 22 (18.49%) | 10 (7.35%) |  | ||
  1 | 20 (16.81%) | 20 (14.71%) |  | ||
  2 | 31 (26.05%) | 28 (20.59%) |  | ||
  3 | 34 (28.57%) | 44 (32.35%) |  | ||
  > 4 | 12 (10.08%) | 34 (25.00%) |  | ||
Church et al., 2017 [27] |  | Intervention group (n = 439) | Comparison group (n = 443) | • Women at the intervention sites were more likely to have high satisfaction with services (30% versus 27%) • Women at the intervention sites were more likely to wait longer than 30 min for services (57%, versus 0.2%) • Women at the intervention sites were less likely to have paid fees for services (83% versus 93%). | |
Proportion who reported receiving an HIV test since last interview | Â | Â | |||
  R0 (immediately post-intervention) | 8.4 | 47.6 | |||
  R1 (+ 6 months) | 44.7 | 51.5 | |||
  R2 (+ 18 months) | 64.0 | 66.4 | |||
  R3 (+ 24 months) | 71.8 | 60.7 | |||
Percent of women achieving HIV testing goals (two-test minimum, one test per year) over the two-year cohort, by different exposure groups • More women in the HIV comparison group (73%) met the HIV testing goal compared to the intervention group (65%) (p < 0.05). • Women who received integrated services at baseline, regardless of design group, were more likely to receive the two-test minimum after r0 (71%) compared to those who did not (61%) (p < 0.01). • Women with highest cumulative exposure to integrated services were more likely to have received the testing requirement (77%) versus the medium score group (71%) and the low score group (60%) (p < 0.001). | |||||
Criniti et al., 2011 [28] |  | Prior to HIV rapid testing (before 2003) | Designated HIV tester (2003–2007) | Full integration into clinic flow (2007–2009) | Not measured |
Testing acceptance rate | Unavailable | 76% | 89% | ||
Patients with a documented HIV test in medical chart from previous 12 months | 34% | 65% | 71% | ||
Average tests performed per month | Unavailable | 70 | 87.9 | ||
Kimani et al., 2015 [29] | Â | Control group n/N (%) | Intervention group n/N (%) | Not measured | |
Uptake of Provider-initiated testing and counseling | |||||
  Baseline | 87/878 (9.9) | 125/815 (15.3) | |||
  15-month follow-up | 104/631 (29.6) | 157/573 (46.6) | |||
aOR for intervention site compared to control: 1.6, (95% CI: 1.2–2.2) (p < 0.01) | |||||
Liambila et al., 2009 [30] | Â | Testing model % (N) | Referral model % (N) | Not measured | |
Proportion of new clients being tested after introducing the intervention | |||||
  New clients offered HIV test* | 74 (27) | 34 (50) | |||
  If offered, new clients choosing HIV test | 50 (20) | 65 (17) | |||
  Proportion of all new clients being tested* | 37 (27) | 22 (50) | |||
Proportion of revisit clients being tested | |||||
  Revisit clients offered HIV test* | 56 (183) | 27 (259) | |||
  If offered, revisit clients choosing HIV test | 61 (103) | 72 (69) | |||
  Proportion of all revisit clients being tested* | 34 (183) | 19 (259) | |||
Proportion of all clients tested | |||||
  Proportion of all new and revisit clients being tested* | 35 (210) | 20 (309) | |||