RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 The role of the general practitioner in the community care of people with HIV infection and AIDS: a comparative study of high- and low-prevalence areas in England.
JF British Journal of General Practice
JO Br J Gen Pract
FD British Journal of General Practice
SP 1233
OP 1236
VO 48
IS 430
A1 M King
A1 R Petchey
A1 S Singh
A1 L Wright
A1 J Raab
A1 W Farnsworth
A1 J Williams
A1 K Friedli
YR 1998
UL http://bjgp.org/content/48/430/1233.abstract
AB BACKGROUND: Policy for the care of people suffering from HIV and AIDS has changed over the past decade. Schemes for shared primary and secondary care have been met with varying success, and patients may be reluctant to become involved. No systematic evaluation comparing the views of primary care providers and users in areas of varying HIV prevalence has been published. AIM: To examine the role of general practice in areas of England with low and high human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence and to compare barriers to general practice care in each area. METHOD: We used focus groups, semistructured questionnaires and interviews in north London (high HIV prevalence) and Nottingham (low HIV prevalence). RESULTS: Four focus groups took place in London. A total of 411 general practitioners (GPs) in London and 405 in Nottingham replied to postal questionnaires. Overall, 121 primary care staff in 40 London practices and 26 staff in five Nottingham practices were interviewed. In all, 54 people infected with HIV were interviewed in London and 20 in Nottingham. Providers and users regarded the 24-hour availability and the familiar environment of general practice as its key assets. Lack of expertise and time were its disadvantages. Providers were concerned about inadequate communication with specialist services. Although providers were concerned about confidentiality, whether they had liberal and sympathetic attitudes was more important in deciding whether people with HIV used the service. In the low-prevalence area, general practice involvement was the result of individual initiatives, and practices were not integrated into specialist care. In the high-prevalence area, HIV care was more usual in general practice, but there was also little integration with HIV services. CONCLUSIONS: In high-prevalence districts, a strategy to make HIV care routine for all GPs may be appropriate. In low-prevalence areas, a network of selected, strategically located, relatively high-involvement practices may be more effective in meeting the primary care needs of people with HIV infection and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS).