No abstract

Community-based organisations (CBOs) are important for eliminating health disparities globally and translating research findings to inform interventions. Engagement is an integral part of partnerships between CBOs and community health researchers and impacts the quality and quantity of any desired outcome. Despite the acknowledged benefits of community-based organisation engagement (CBOE), there are variations in its operationalisation and paucity in the understanding of its use in community-scientific partnerships. To further understand CBOE, the aim of this study was to synthesise published literature relevant to the definitions and applications of CBOE and identify its key components. A systematic search was conducted in March 2017, and updated in June 2017. Keywords were varied to account for international differences in spelling and word usage. Five major databases, MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Google Scholar, were used to identify potential research studies. A total of 32 studies were included in this review. Following the analysis of the literature, four salient themes emerged as components of CBOE: (1) Need (a consensus between all the parties in a partnership on the importance of a specified project and its proposed benefits to a target community); (2) Partnership Dynamics (the workings of a relationship between a CBO and a scientific/academic stakeholder); (3) Resources (include but are not limited to: personnel, money, work space, expertise and equipment); and (4) Outcomes (products of the partnership). This review provides a foundation for future research in applying CBOE to translational research and interventions. This analysis will assist community health researchers in planning partnerships with CBOs, and make necessary adjustments to improve study outcomes. Appropriate application of the components of CBOE in partnerships will assist researchers in addressing health disparities.

No abstract

Background and PurposeHIV testing is an essential tool for identifying people at risk for HIV infection and linking those who are infected to care. Despite the recommendation for routine HIV testing for people who are vulnerable to HIV infection, healthcare professionals experience difficulties initiating discussions related to sexual health and recommending HIV testing. Healthcare professionals not offering HIV testing is a frequently reported reason for delays in testing. Self-initiated HIV testing is understudied and vital to improving HIV testing rates, treatment, and the process of HIV prevention. The main aim of this integrative literature review is to identify facilitators, barriers, and outcomes of self-initiated HIV testing.MethodA search of PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EBSCO host, and Google Scholar, revealed 31 studies that met the inclusion criteria.ResultsSelf-initiated HIV testing is voluntarily requested and completed by individuals either using self-testing kits or in a setting that provides HIV testing. Perception of susceptibility to HIV infection, privacy, access to HIV testing sites or self-testing kits, and knowledge related to HIV infection and testing, were some of the salient facilitators and barriers to self-initiated HIV testing. Findings from our review indicate several benefits to self-initiated HIV testing, including early identification of acute HIV infection, increased likelihood for the uptake of HIV prevention interventions, and a reduction in sexual risk behaviors.Implication for PracticeNursing initiatives geared toward promoting self-initiated HIV testing will lead to prompt diagnoses and linkages to treatment which will further improve nursing care and a variety of health outcomes.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to identify preferences for content, method of delivery and frequency of information to encourage self-initiated sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing. Design: Qualitative study involving individual in-depth interviews with 35 college students aged 18–24 years. Setting: A university in Central Pennsylvania, USA. Method: Data were collected using a demographic and sexual history questionnaire, Sexually Transmitted Disease Knowledge Questionnaire and a semi-structured interview guide. Transcribed interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results: Findings from the study document STI testing information preferences as they relate to self-initiated testing. The majority of participants preferred receiving STI testing information through email. Themes within their accounts included Actionable Information Content, Frequently Accessed Delivery Method, and Routine STI Testing Information. Conclusion: The high incidence of STIs among US college students is an indication of the need to increase diagnosis and treatment to reduce transmission. Study findings have implications for the development and evaluation of low-cost interventions to improve the uptake of STI testing and reduce STI burden among college students.