Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

Although the United States has made progress in reducing the transmission of HIV from mother-to-child, it has not yet met the goal of reducing such transmissions to 70%. Self-reported HIV testing varied by state of residence. Approximately, two in three women reported that their health care provider asked them about HIV testing during prenatal care, and 82.3% of those asked reported receipt of a test.

Objectives:

The aim of this study was (1) to examine the prevalence of receipt of an HIV test during pregnancy and (2) to examine differences in HIV testing during pregnancy by race/ethnicity, state of residence, and other sociodemographic characteristics.

Design:

Population-based surveillance of women with a recent live birth from seven US states. Individuals were sampled from birth certificate records 2–6 months postpartum and surveyed about their behaviors and experiences before, during, and shortly after pregnancy.

Methods:

Data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, a large, population-based survey, were used to estimate the prevalence of HIV testing during pregnancy during 2016–2019. Weighted prevalence estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated overall and by demographic and other selected characteristics.

Results:

Approximately two-thirds of women (66.1%) self-reported having a test for HIV during pregnancy. Prevalence varied by maternal characteristics and was highest among women who were non-Hispanic Black (80.7%) and among women who were aged ⩽ 24 years, had a high school education or less, were unmarried, or had Medicaid or no insurance for prenatal care (each > 70%). Self-reported HIV testing varied by state of residence. Approximately two in three women reported that their health care provider asked them about HIV testing during prenatal care, and 82.3% of those asked reported receipt of a test.

Conclusion:

About one in three Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System respondents did not report an HIV test during pregnancy. Health care providers can help educate pregnant patients about the importance of HIV testing and ensure universal testing to help identify individuals needing treatment and reduce the rates of mother-to-child HIV transmission.

Keywords

HIV HIV testing Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System pregnant women providers social determinants of health women

Introduction

HIV testing during pregnancy is recognized globally as a key measure in preventing mother-to-child transmission, along with providing treatment, care, and support services for pregnant women living with HIV. Data from the National HIV Surveillance System (NHSS) suggest that the United States has either met or is very close to meeting the goal of reducing mother-to-child transmission to < 1 infection per 100,000 live births.¹ However, racial and ethnic disparities persist, particularly for non-Hispanic Black or African American children born in the United States, among whom the rates of perinatally acquired HIV infections are three times higher than those for non-Hispanic White and Hispanic/Latino children.² While it is promising that the largest decreases in HIV diagnoses in the last decade were among Black women,² in 2019, Black women, in general, had higher HIV diagnosis rates compared to women of other races/ethnicities and were 4.9 and 16.4 times more likely than Hispanic/Latino females and White females to receive an HIV diagnosis, respectively.³ Previous studies have shown that structural and social determinants of health contribute to these inequities.^4
–6 Historically, Black women tend to have less access to health care⁶ and lower rates of health insurance.^7
–9 These factors can contribute to lower rates of testing rates,¹⁰ which is associated with increased HIV transmission.^10,11 Furthermore, being uninsured or underinsured could also lead to inadequate access to family planning and other services that often contribute to HIV transmission among Black women.^6,8

One of the objectives of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for updating its HIV testing guidelines¹² was to increase HIV screening among pregnant women. These updated guidelines specifically state that HIV screening should be included in the routine panel of prenatal screening tests for all pregnant women. Also that HIV screening should be recommended after the patient is notified that testing will be performed unless the patient declines (opt-out screening). In addition, the guidelines recommend repeat screening in the third trimester in jurisdictions with elevated rates of HIV infection.

Repeat HIV testing during pregnancy among women who have a negative HIV test result early in pregnancy is important for reducing the risk for perinatal HIV transmission.¹² It is worth noting that there are differences in state-based laws that mandate HIV testing more than once during a pregnancy, and the states that mandate repeated testing report favorable outcomes.¹³ For instance, the implementation of a statewide initiative in the state of Illinois helped to maximize opportunities that identify HIV-positive pregnant women and, in turn, helped to reduce perinatal HIV transmission.¹⁴ This initiative showed that HIV testing rates increased at every opportunity to identify HIV-positive pregnant women; during the antenatal, intrapartum, and postpartum periods, including newborn testing.¹⁴ It is important that hospitals and health care facilities are knowledgeable about these recommendations and use every opportunity to provide clinician education on the appropriate discussion of HIV testing among pregnant women.

Our study extends on a prior report,¹⁵ by providing updated estimates of HIV testing during pregnancy among women with a recent live birth. Furthermore, it describes HIV testing patterns by provider interaction among women who reported being asked if they wanted an HIV test during prenatal care. The objectives of our analysis were to describe the prevalence of receipt of an HIV test during pregnancy and to examine differences in HIV testing during pregnancy by race/ethnicity, state of residence, and other sociodemographic characteristics.

Methods

The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) is an ongoing, state or jurisdiction-specific, population-based surveillance system designed to monitor self-reported behaviors and experiences before, during, and shortly after pregnancy among women with a recent live birth. Participating PRAMS sites select a stratified random sample of women from birth certificate records 2–6 months after delivery. Stratification variables are decided individually by each participating site. Because the sampling unit for this study is women who experienced a pregnancy that resulted in a live birth during the calendar year of data collection in each state, it is a possible but uncommon occurrence that a woman with multiple live births during the study period could have been randomly sampled more than once, as each pregnancy is independently eligible for inclusion. However, the absence of personally identifiable information in the dataset precluded linkage between surveys and discernment of such an eventuality. Up to three surveys are sent by mail. Each mailing includes information about informed consent; thus, the return of a completed survey indicates consent to participate. Women who do not respond to the mailed survey are contacted to complete an interview by telephone, during which time verbal consent to participate is obtained by the interviewer before initiating the survey. More details about the PRAMS surveillance system have been described elsewhere https://www.cdc.gov/prams/index.htm.¹⁶

This report is a secondary data analysis of data collected by seven states (Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, and Nebraska) that asked an optional question about the receipt of HIV testing during pregnancy and achieved a targeted weighted annual response rate of at least ⩾ 55% (2016 and 2017) or ⩾ 50% (2018 and 2019) on their PRAMS survey in one or more of the study years. State data were included for each year the state achieved the required weighted annual response rate. Data were weighted to account for noncoverage and nonresponse and represent the total population of women with a live birth in the study states. The PRAMS study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of CDC and each participating jurisdiction.

HIV testing during pregnancy was ascertained among all women by the question, “At any time during your most recent pregnancy or delivery, did you have a test for HIV (the virus that causes AIDS)?” Response options were “No,” “Yes,” and “I don’t know.” Among the 26,398 PRAMS respondents in the study sites, 4986 (19.7%) did not know if they had been tested and 337 (1.1%) did not respond to the question and were excluded from the analysis. The final sample available to examine self-reported HIV testing during pregnancy comprised 21,075 women. Among those women, 20,359 (98.8%) reported having prenatal care and were asked if, during a prenatal care visit, a health care worker asked, “If I wanted to be tested for HIV (the virus that causes AIDS).” Only respondents who had prenatal care were included in the analysis of prenatal health care provider interactions.

Maternal demographics were derived from birth certificate data, including maternal race/ethnicity, age, education, marital status, and parity. Race and ethnicity were defined as Hispanic, non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN), non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander (API), and non-Hispanic “Other” or “Mixed Race” using information available from linked birth certificate data. Insurance coverage during prenatal care, enrollment in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and intimate partner violence exposure were derived from the PRAMS survey. Timing of entry into prenatal care was based on birth certificate data, or if missing on the birth certificate, was taken from the PRAMS survey. The HIV status of participants is not available in PRAMS and was not obtained from other sources. Therefore, the sample potentially included women who were living with HIV and those who were not.

Statistical analysis

Weighted prevalence estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated overall and by demographic and other selected characteristics to assess HIV testing during pregnancy, and prenatal provider discussion and testing among those who reported that their provider asked them about HIV testing using cross-tabulation analysis. In addition, weighted prevalence estimates and 95% CI were calculated for testing among women who did and those who did not discuss HIV testing with their prenatal care provider, which was also assessed by state of residence among women who attended prenatal care. Significant differences in prevalence within each characteristic assessed were identified by examining non-overlapping CIs. This typically conservative approach might fail to note differences between estimates more often than formal statistical testing. Overlap between CIs does not necessarily mean that there is no statistical difference between estimates. The PROC CROSSTAB function in SUDAAN version 11.0 software was used in all analyses.

Results

Among women with a recent live birth who responded “No” or “Yes” to the question about whether or not they were tested for HIV during pregnancy, 13,860 out of 21,075 (66.1%) reported having been tested. The prevalence of reported HIV testing varied by race/ethnicity and was highest among non-Hispanic Black women (80.7%, 95% CI [79.1%–82.1%]) compared to women from other racial and ethnic groups. The prevalence was also higher among Hispanic women (72.7%, 95% CI [70.8%–74.6%]) compared with non-Hispanic AI/AN (66.4%, 95% CI [62.6%–70.0%]), non-Hispanic API (61.3%, 95% CI [58.1%–64.4%]), or non-Hispanic White (58.4%, 95% CI [57.1%–59.7%]) women (Table 1).

Table 1.

Prevalence of HIV testing during pregnancy, by selected characteristics—PRAMS, seven US states,^a 2016–2019.

Characteristic	Had HIV testing (N = 21,075)
	No			Yes
	N^b	%^c	95% CI	N^b	%^c	95% CI
All women	7215	33.9	33.0–34.8	13,860	66.1	65.3–67.0
Maternal age (years)
<20	333	27.5	23.8–31.6	721	72.5	68.4–76.2
20–24	1227	29.1	27.1–31.2	2780	70.9	68.9–72.9
25–34	4267	35.9	34.7–37.0	7779	64.1	63.0–65.3
⩾35	1388	33.9	31.9–35.9	2580	66.1	64.1–68.1
Race/ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic	3460	41.6	40.3–42.9	4409	58.4	57.1–59.7
Black, non-Hispanic	1084	19.3	17.9–20.9	4056	80.7	79.1–82.1
American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic	406	33.6	30.0–37.4	811	66.4	62.6–70.0
Asian/Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic	798	38.7	35.6–41.9	1184	61.3	58.1–64.4
Hispanic	1023	27.3	25.4–29.2	2549	72.7	70.8–74.6
Other race, non-Hispanic^d	378	32.7	27.9–37.9	770	67.3	62.1–72.2
Education
Less than high school	797	26.3	24.0–28.8	1935	73.7	71.2–76.0
GED or high school	1583	28.9	27.1–30.7	3561	71.1	69.3–72.9
More than high school	4758	37	35.9–38.1	8234	63	61.9–64.1
Marital status
Married	4878	40.5	39.3–41.6	7188	59.5	58.4–60.7
Not married	2333	24.6	23.3–25.9	6666	75.4	74.1–76.7
Parity
1	2671	32.9	31.5–34.3	5351	67.1	65.6–68.5
⩾2	4535	34.4	33.3–35.6	8495	65.6	64.4–66.7
Prenatal insurance payor
Private	4247	39.1	37.9–40.3	6704	60.9	59.7–62.1
Medicaid or public	2206	25.9	24.5–27.3	5767	74.1	72.7–75.5
Other or none^e	171	25.6	20.9–31.0	429	74.4	69.0–79.1
Enrolled in WIC program
No	4638	39.5	38.3–40.7	7116	60.5	59.4–61.7
Yes	2488	25.7	24.4–27.0	6577	74.3	73.0–75.6
Trimester entry into prenatal care
First	5828	35.5	34.5–36.5	10,664	64.5	63.5–65.5
Second or later	1139	26.5	24.7–28.5	2728	73.5	71.5–75.3
Any intimate partner violence
No	7054	34.1	33.2–35.0	13,435	65.9	65.0–66.8
Yes	161	24	19.3–29.4	425	76	70.6–80.8
Participating states
Alabama	568	29.3	27.3–31.4	1389	70.7	68.6–72.8
Alaska	1385	43.4	41.4–45.4	2044	56.6	54.6–58.6
Arkansas	723	37.6	34.3–40.9	1415	62.4	59.1–65.7
Massachusetts	1510	36	34.2–37.8	3262	64	62.3–65.8
Maryland	986	27.8	26.1–29.6	2481	72.2	70.4–73.9
Mississippi	695	36.5	33.9–39.2	1254	63.5	60.8–66.1
Nebraska	1348	46.3	44.0–48.6	2015	53.7	51.4–56.0

CI: confidence interval; GED: general educational development certificate; WIC: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children program.

Data obtained (by year) from Alabama (2017), Alaska (2016, 2017, 2018), Arkansas (2016), Massachusetts (2016, 2017, 2018), Maryland (2016, 2017), Mississippi (2018), and Nebraska (2016, 2018).

Unweighted sample size.

Weighted percentage.

Other race/ethnicity includes women who were identified as non-Hispanic “Other”’ or “Mixed Race” on the birth certificate.

Includes other government plans or programs, Indian Health Service, and TRICARE.

The prevalence of having an HIV test during pregnancy was > 70% among women aged < 20 years (72.5%) and 20–24 years (70.9%), those who had a high school education (71.1%) or less (73.7%), those who were unmarried (75.4%), and those who had Medicaid (74.1%), or no insurance (74.4%) for prenatal care. Prevalence was also > 70% among women enrolled in the WIC (74.3%), women who entered prenatal care in the second trimester or later (73.5%), and those who experienced intimate partner violence before or during pregnancy (76.0%). Self-report of having an HIV test during pregnancy varied by state of residence, ranging from 53.7% in Nebraska to 72.2% in Maryland (Table 1).

Overall, 13,255 (64.4%) women reported being asked by a health care worker if they wanted an HIV test during prenatal care. The prevalence of reporting that a health care worker asked about an HIV test during prenatal care ranged from 52.9% in Arkansas to 70.7% in Alaska. Among those women, 82.3% reported receiving an HIV test during pregnancy (Table 2).

Table 2.

Characteristics of women asked by their health care provider during prenatal care if they wanted an HIV test and of those who agreed to testing—PRAMS, seven US states,^a 2016–2019.

Characteristic	Asked if wanted an HIV test			Tested, among those asked
	Total = 20,359^b			Tested, among those asked
	N^b	%^c	95% CI	N^b	%^c	95% CI
All women	13,255	64.4	63.5–65.3	10,695	82.3	81.4–83.2
Maternal age (years)
<20	696	71.8	67.4–75.8	573	87.6	83.7–90.6
20–24	2726	71.7	69.5–73.7	2234	83.9	81.8–85.7
25–34	7439	62.2	61.0–63.4	5967	81.6	80.3–82.8
⩾35	2394	62.6	60.5–64.7	1921	81.5	79.3–83.5
Education
Less than high school	1848	75.3	72.7–77.7	1535	86.8	84.4–88.8
High school	3498	72.8	70.9–74.6	2860	83.1	81.2–84.9
More than high school	7772	59.4	58.2–60.5	6190	81.1	79.9–82.3
Marital status
Married	6993	57.7	56.5–58.9	5366	78.3	77.0–79.5
Not married	6255	74.1	72.7–75.5	5324	86.9	85.6–88.0
Parity
1	5059	65.4	64.0–66.9	4155	83.3	81.8–84.6
⩾2	8181	63.7	62.5–64.9	6529	81.8	80.6–82.9
Prenatal insurance payor
Private	6441	58.2	57.0–59.5	5034	79.4	78.1–80.7
Medicaid or public	5512	73.1	71.6–74.5	4635	86.1	84.8–87.4
Other^d or none	383	72.8	66.8–78.0	326	86.8	80.9–91.0
Enrolled in WIC program
No	6837	58.2	56.9–59.4	5314	79.2	77.9–80.5
Yes	6248	73.3	72.0–74.6	5247	86.1	84.8–87.3
Trimester entry into prenatal care
First	10,580	62.9	61.9–63.9	8460	81.3	80.2–82.3
Second of later	2675	70.8	68.7–72.7	2235	86.2	84.3–87.9
Any intimate partner violence
No	12,883	64.4	63.4–65.3	10,380	82.2	81.2–83.1
Yes	372	66.9	60.5–72.7	315	88.4	83.4–92.0
Participating states
Alabama	1217	64.4	62.2–66.6	1062	87.2	85.1–89.0
Alaska	2327	70.7	68.8–72.6	1677	69.6	67.2–71.8
Arkansas	1135	52.9	49.4–56.4	971	83.1	79.1–86.5
Massachusetts	3054	65.1	63.3–66.9	1856	81.8	79.9–83.6
Maryland	2174	67.7	65.7–69.5	2575	85.6	83.8–87.3
Mississippi	1104	58.6	55.8–61.3	915	82.4	79.4–85.0
Nebraska	2244	66.5	64.2–68.7	1639	68	65.2–70.7

CI: confidence interval; WIC: Women, Infants, and Children.

Data obtained (by year) from Alabama (2017), Alaska (2016, 2017, 2018), Arkansas (2016), Massachusetts (2016, 2017, 2018), Maryland (2016, 2017), Mississippi (2018), and Nebraska (2016, 2018).

Unweighted sample size. Variations in sample size might result from differences in the skip pattern associated with a survey question or to missing responses for some variables.

Adjusted weighted prevalence expressed as a percentage.

Includes other government plans or programs, Indian Health Service, and TRICARE.

The highest prevalence of HIV testing among those who were asked was among non-Hispanic Black women (89.4%, 95% CI [87.9%–90.7%]) and Hispanic women (86.6%, 95% CI [84.7%–88.2%]) compared with women of other race/ethnicities. For many of the characteristics examined, non-Hispanic Black women reported a higher prevalence of getting tested. For example, among women enrolled in WIC, 89.4% (95% CI [87.6%–91.0%]) of non-Hispanic Black women reported getting tested, compared with 83.1% (95% CI [80.3%–85.6%]) of non-Hispanic White women, 74.9% (95% CI [73.1%–76.7%]) of non-Hispanic AI/AN women, and 69.1% (95% CI [60.4%–76.6%]) of non-Hispanic API women. Likewise, 90.5% (95% CI [88.6%–92.0%]) of non-Hispanic Black women with Medicaid for prenatal insurance reported receiving an HIV test during pregnancy, compared with Medicaid recipients who were non-Hispanic White (82.7%, 95% CI [79.8%–85.3%]), non-Hispanic AI/AN (77.1%, 95% CI [71.4%–82.0%]), or non-Hispanic API (67.6%, 95% CI [57.4%–76.4%]) (Table 3).

Table 3.

Characteristics of women who agreed to HIV testing by race/ethnicity among those who were asked by their health care provider during prenatal care if they wanted an HIV test—PRAMS, seven US states,^a 2016–2019.

Characteristic	White, NH			Black, NH			American Indian/Alaska Native, NH			Asian/Pacific Islander, NH			Hispanic			Other, NH^b
	n = 4311^c			n = 3591^c			n = 878^c			n = 1199^c			n = 2430^c			n = 750^c
	N^c	%^d	95% CI	N^c	%^d	95% CI	N^c	%^d	95% CI	N^c	%^d	95% CI	N^c	%^d	95% CI	N^c	%^d	95% CI
All women	3231	77.9	76.4–79.4	3170	89.4	87.9–90.7	673	77	72.9–80.7	902	77.8	74.1–81.1	2054	86.6	84.7–88.2	597	78.5	71.9–83.9
Maternal age (years)
<20	143	85.4	76.8–91.2	205	91.8	86.6–95.1	51	71.8	60.7–80.7	NR			129	87.4	78.8–92.8	34	78.9^e	60.6–90.1
20–24	631	81.9	78.4–85.0	722	87.1	83.6–89.9	170	73.9	67.3–79.6	68	64.3	45.8–79.3	493	85.2	80.9–88.8	143	85.6	74.8–92.3
25–34	1820	76.4	74.4–78.4	1713	89.7	87.7–91.5	376	78.3	71.8–83.6	613	79.4	75.1–83.2	1071	86.6	84.1–88.8	336	78.5	69.0–85.6
⩾35	637	77.3	73.8–80.6	530	91.1	87.5–93.7	76	81.2	67.1–90.1	211	77.3	69.5–83.6	361	88.1	83.9–91.3	84	66.1	46.4–81.4
Education
Less than high school	267	84.2	78.1–88.9	333	89.5	84.7–93.0	156	74.5	66.8–80.9	57	58.2	39.0–75.2	676	89.3	86.4–91.6	44	79.3^e	56.9–91.8
High school	674	79.5	75.9–82.7	1033	87.4	84.5–89.9	300	74.2	67.0–80.3	109	71.4	59.6–80.9	561	84.7	80.6–88.1	178	85.4	74.4–92.2
More than high school	2273	76.8	75.0–78.5	1788	90.8	89.0–92.4	211	83.1	76.7–88.0	731	80.5	76.7–83.8	788	84.7	81.5–87.5	372	77	68.5–83.7
Marital status
Married	2172	74.9	73.1–76.7	966	88.3	85.42–90.6	201	75.6	65.4–83.6	788	77.7	73.7–81.3	915	84.8	81.8–87.3	275	75.9	67.4–82.7
Not married	1059	84.2	81.4–86.6	2203	89.9	88.1–91.4	469	77.7	73.7–81.2	114	78.2	68.6–85.5	1138	87.9	85.4–90.0	322	80.7	70.0–88.2
Parity
1	1468	81	78.7–83.1	1145	88.3	85.7–90.5	179	74.2	67.2–80.0	432	82.5	77.2–86.7	643	84.4	80.4–87.8	259	82.9	73.3–89.6
⩾2	1763	75.7	73.6–77.7	2022	90.1	88.2–91.6	491	77.9	72.7–82.4	470	74	68.7–78.6	1409	87.5	85.5–89.3	337	75.3	65.9–82.8
Prenatal insurance payor
Private	2132	76.1	74.2–78.0	1210	88.4	85.7–90.6	131	81	73.5–86.7	645	82.6	78.9–85.8	606	82.6	78.6–85.9	269	74.2	64.4–82.0
Medicaid or public	936	82.7	79.8–85.3	1738	90.5	88.6–92.0	446	77.1	71.4–82.0	167	67.6	57.4–76.4	1080	87.6	85–89.8	246	84.4	74.6–90.9
Other^f or none	37	75.1^e	54.3–88.4	50	94.5^e	84.3–98.2	49	80.4	68.6–88.5	NR			131	88.9	81.2–93.7	46	95.7^e	87.8–98.6
Enrolled in WIC program
No	2186	75.6	73.7–77.4	1121	89.3	86.6–91.5	245	80.7	75.3–85.1	682	80.2	76.1–83.8	687	84.1	80.4–87.1	356	76.3	67.9–83.1
Yes	1022	83.1	80.3–85.6	2014	89.4	87.6–91.0	422	74.9	69.1–80.0	202	69.1	60.4–76.6	1341	87.8	85.6–89.7	235	81.3	69.6–89.2
Trimester entry into prenatal care
First	2697	76.9	75.2–78.5	2433	89.2	87.4–90.7	521	78.9	75.3–82.0	741	78.8	75.0–82.2	1522	85.8	83.6–87.8	491	77.1	69.5–83.2
Second or later	534	83.5	79.8–86.6	737	90.1	87.0–92.4	152	71	57.7–81.4	161	72.9	61.6–81.9	532	88.3	84.7–91.2	106	86.2	73.9–93.2
Any intimate partner violence
No	3160	77.8	76.3–79.3	3063	89.3	87.7–90.6	618	76.7	72.3–80.6	891	77.5	73.7–80.8	2009	86.5	84.7–88.2	571	78.6	71.9–84.1
Yes	71	84.1	72.9–91.3	107	93.3	87.0–96.6	55	81.3	69.5–89.3	NR			45	88.1^e	74.0–95.0	26	72.7^e	34.6–93.0
Participating states
Alabama	440	82.6	79.1–85.6	502	92.4	89.6–94.5	NR			NR			87	89.6	82.1–94.2	NR
Alaska	525	62.7	58.9–66.2	44	83.1^e	65.3–92.8	553	77.5	74.4–80.3	111	68	59.0–75.8	153	81.2	72.8–87.5	269	80	73.5–85.2
Arkansas	416	80.4	74.6–85.1	417	94.5	90.5–96.9	NR			NR			100	81.9	68.4–90.4	NR	95.1	80.4–98.9
Massachusetts	683	79.1	75.8–82.1	628	88.4	85.8–90.5	NR			116	77.4	73.1–81.2	382	88.3	85.7–90.4	98	75.9	60.3–86.8
Maryland	555	82.5	79.2–85.3	680	88.4	85.2–90.9	NR			385	80.9	72.1–87.4	823	88.4	84.6–91.3	38	86.2^e	69.6–94.4
Mississippi	267	77.9	72.4–82.6	606	85.5	81.7–88.5	NR			NR			22	75.0^e	55.0–88.0	NR
Nebraska	345	62.4	58.3–66.4	293	86.4	82.5–89.6	109	78.7	71.4–84.6	258	74.6	70.5–78.3	487	77.2	73.8–80.3	147	63	49.9–74.5

NH: non-Hispanic; CI: confidence interval; NR: not reported because denominator < 30; WIC: Women, Infants, and Children.

Data obtained (by year) from Alabama (2017), Alaska (2016, 2017, 2018), Arkansas (2016), Massachusetts (2016, 2017, 2018), Maryland (2016, 2017), Mississippi (2018), and Nebraska (2016, 2018).

Other race/ethnicity includes women who were identified as non-Hispanic, “other,” or “mixed race,” on the birth certificate.

Unweighted sample size. Variations in sample size might result from differences in the skip pattern associated with a survey question or to missing responses for some variables.

Adjusted weighted prevalence expressed as a percentage.

Estimate with denominator ⩾ 30 to < 60 and should be interpreted with caution.

Includes other government plans or programs, Indian Health Service, and TRICARE.

In all states, testing was higher among women who were asked about HIV testing during prenatal care ranging from 68.0% to 87.2%, compared with those who were not asked (range: 24.0%–46.3%) (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

HIV testing by provider discussion and state of residence (N = 13,079)— Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), seven US states, 2019.

Discussion

PRAMS provides a robust data source to estimate the prevalence of HIV testing during pregnancy in a large, population-based sample of women with a recent live birth. Our study found that among women with a recent live birth in seven states, two out of three women reported having a test for HIV during their recent pregnancy from 2016 to 2019. Our results are like previous studies in some jurisdictions that have shown that most women get tested during pregnancy, but that universal testing is not reported consistently, as recommended.¹²

Evidence from self-reported survey data and chart review studies suggests that in recent years in the areas covered by these studies, 57%–81% of women have been tested for HIV during pregnancy.^17,18 However, prenatal testing rates for sexually transmitted infections (STIs), such as syphilis, and rubella and hepatitis B, have been found to be 97% or higher.¹⁹ Those previous findings suggest that health care providers in the United States are not consistently implementing HIV screening during prenatal care visits as frequently as they perinatally screen for other infectious conditions.

HIV testing patterns during pregnancy varied by demographic characteristics, including race, age, and state of residence. Receipt of an HIV test and prenatal care providers asking about HIV testing were least commonly reported by non-Hispanic White women and most reported by non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic women. The findings are consistent with previous studies that reported non-Hispanic Black women were more likely to have an HIV test during pregnancy.^20
–22 HIV testing during pregnancy findings from PRAMS for 2004–2013 demonstrates a similar pattern with lower HIV testing rates during pregnancy among non-Hispanic White women and non-recipients of Medicaid or WIC.¹⁵

Patterns of racial and ethnic differences in HIV incidence are well known.^23
–25 As shown by previous studies, the incidence of HIV among Black women, in general, is higher compared to other race/ethnic groups.^2,23 In 2019, among females residing in census tracts with the highest poverty/lowest wealth, the HIV diagnosis rate for Black women was 6.6 times the rate for White women, and in tracts with the lowest poverty/highest wealth, the HIV diagnosis rate for Black women was 22.3 times that for White women.⁷ Furthermore, Black women represent most of the women with diagnosed HIV who give birth.^4,19 However, Black persons typically have the lowest linkage to HIV medical care.⁴ Furthermore, Black women and Hispanic persons are less likely than White persons to receive high-quality medical treatment after they gain access to medical care.^25,26

A higher proportion of women who were asked by a health care provider if they wanted to be tested for HIV reported that they received a test compared with women who were not asked. For Black women who were asked about testing, the highest prevalence of HIV testing was among those who were young, educated, unmarried, uninsured, or had experienced intimate partner violence. Higher rates of perinatal transmission of HIV among Black women¹⁷ may explain the more frequent discussions of HIV testing reported by Black women. Medicaid recipients tend to be tested, similarly WIC recipients,¹⁵ though for Black women who were Medicaid and WIC recipients, there was no difference. Implicit bias among health care professionals can have an influence on health care outcomes, as well. Some studies have found that health care providers have positive attitudes toward Whites and negative attitudes toward people of color, and this may be related to the differences we found in our study by race and ethnicity for HIV testing during pregnancy.^27
–29 Provision of care that aligns with recommendations for universal testing and not provider bias is important to reduce the rate of perinatal HIV transmission. Implicit bias appears to be an important target for future research to understand how it affects health outcomes.

We found differences in testing by state. As stated earlier, HIV testing policies differ by state regulations and states with intensive public health initiatives, provider education, and more systematic support tend to score higher in increased rapid testing and HIV status awareness.^13,30,31 The approach in HIV rapid testing in Illinois for pregnant women presenting for delivery with unknown HIV status in Illinois, for example, proved to be successful, resulting in a sustained performance of nearly 100% of Illinois mother–infant dyads having known HIV status on discharge.¹³ New York State also reported an uptick in rapid testing of pregnant women after it initiated a multilevel approach to preventing perinatal transmission HIV testing.³⁰ In addition, in Houston, Texas after implementing hospital-based interventions to improve the uptake of rapid HIV testing on labor and delivery, investigators identified significant increases in the performance of rapid testing, to nearly 100% of eligible pregnant women.³¹ These are a few examples of state and local-driven interventions that were successful and could help in other areas of the country where HIV testing among pregnant women is low.

The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, data are collected 2–6 months after delivery, which might lead to recall bias if women cannot remember whether they were tested during pregnancy. Second, PRAMS data are self-reported and do not indicate whether a prenatal care provider knew the woman’s HIV status, so it is not possible to account for women who were previously tested and known to be HIV-positive. In addition, respondents may be less likely to disclose information on sensitive topics leading to underreporting. Finally, approximately 20% of PRAMS respondents indicated they did not know if they had been tested. This could be the result of opt-out testing procedures that allow providers to conduct HIV testing without preventive counseling or a signed consent specific to HIV testing.³² As a result, some women may not have been fully aware of their testing status if it was conducted as part of a panel of prenatal tests.^19,32 This limitation could affect the estimates as some proportion of those respondents may have been tested.

Conclusion

Considering that testing in all states was higher among those who reported being asked about HIV testing during prenatal visits compared with those who were not, health care workers can play an important role in educating women about the importance of HIV testing during pregnancy. Discussions during prenatal visits can raise awareness of opt-out guidelines and increase the number of women who are aware of their HIV testing status.¹² Continued efforts are needed to promote HIV testing for all women during pregnancy to reduce disparities and ultimately eliminate mother-to-child HIV transmission in the United States.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Publication of this article was made possible with the contributions of the state and territorial health departments and HIV surveillance programs that provided surveillance data to CDC and the seven study PRAMS sites that conducted PRAMS surveys and whose data are used in this paper. The authors thank CDC colleagues for their review of and feedback on this article.

Declarations

ORCID iD

Ndidi Nwangwu-Ike

Disclaimer

The findings and conclusions in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

References

Nesheim

Wiener

Fitz Harris

, et al. Brief report: estimated incidence of perinatally acquired HIV infection in the United States, 1978–2013. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2017; 76(5): 461–464.

Volume 33: diagnoses of HIV infection in the United States and dependent areas, 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/library/reports/surveillance/cdc-hiv-surveillance-report-2020-updated-vol-33.pdf (accessed 24 July 2023).

2019 national HIV surveillance system reports. CDC. www.cdc.gov (2021, accessed 24 July 2023).

Monitoring selected national HIV prevention and care objectives by using HIV surveillance data, https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/library/reports/surveillance/cdc-hiv-surveillance-supplemental-report-vol-25-2.pdf

Dean

Fenton

KA.

Addressing social determinants of health in the prevention and control of HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, sexually transmitted infections, and tuberculosis. Public Health Rep 2010; 125 (Suppl. 4): 1–5.

Sharpe

Voûte

Rose

, et al. Social determinants of HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases among black women: implications for health equity. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2012; 21(3): 249–254.

Johnson Lyons

Gant

Jin

, et al. A census tract–level examination of differences in social determinants of health among people with HIV, by race/ethnicity and geography, United States and Puerto Rico, 2017. Public Health Rep 2022; 137(2): 278–290.

Prather

Fuller

Jeffries

IV , et al. Racism, African American women, and their sexual and reproductive health: a review of historical and contemporary evidence and implications for health equity. Health Equity 2018; 2(1): 249–259.

Taylor

KY.

The black plague. The New Yorker, 16 May 2020, https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-black-plague

10.

Nearns

Baldwin

Clayton

Social, behavioral, and health care factors associated with recent HIV testing among sexually active non-Hispanic Black Women in the United States. Womens Health Issues 2009; 19(1): 52–60.

11.

Branson

Handsfield

Lampe

, et al. Revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults, adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care settings. MMWR Recomm Rep 2006; 55(RR-14): 1–17.

12.

Berhie

Tsai

Miller

, et al. Evaluation of state-mandated third trimester repeat HIV testing in a large tertiary care center. Am J Perinatol. Epub ahead of print 10 November 2022. DOI: 10.1055/a-1925-2210.

13.

Yee

Miller

Statton

, et al. Sustainability of statewide rapid HIV testing in labor and delivery. AIDS Behav 2018; 22(2): 538–544.

14.

Koumans

Harrison

House

, et al. Characteristics associated with lack of HIV testing during pregnancy and delivery in 36 US states, 2004–2013. Int J STD AIDS 2018; 29(12): 1225–1233.

15.

Shulman

D’Angelo

Harrison

, et al. The pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system (PRAMS): overview of design and methodology. Am J Public Health 2018; 108(10): 1305–1313.

16.

Olakunde

Pharr

Adeyinka

DA.

HIV testing among pregnant women with prenatal care in the United States: an analysis of the 2011-2017 National Survey of Family Growth. Int J STD AIDS 2020; 31(7): 680–688.

17.

Fitz Harris

Taylor

Zhang

, et al. Factors associated with human immunodeficiency virus screening of women during pregnancy, labor and delivery, United States, 2005-2006. Matern Child Health J 2014; 18(3): 648–656.

18.

Schrag

Arnold

Mohle-Boetani

, et al. Prenatal screening for infectious diseases and opportunities for prevention. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102(4): 753–760.

19.

Nguyen

Siahpush

Grimm

, et al. Women from racial or ethnic minority and low socioeconomic backgrounds receive more prenatal education: results from the 2012 to 2014 pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system. Birth 2019; 46(1): 157–165.

20.

Patel

Johnson

Krueger

, et al. Trends in HIV testing among US adults, aged 18–64 years, 2011–2017. AIDS Behav 2020; 24: 532–539.

21.

Townes

Rosenberg

Guerra-Reyes

, et al. Inequitable experiences between Black and White women discussing sexual health with healthcare providers: findings from a US probability sample. J Sex Med 2020; 17(8): 1520–1528.

22.

Bradley

Williams

Green

, et al. Disparities in incidence of human immunodeficiency virus infection among Black and White women—United States, 2010–2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2019; 68(18): 416–418.

23.

Earnshaw

Bogart

Dovidio

, et al. Stigma and racial/ethnic HIV disparities: moving toward resilience. Am Psychol 2013; 68: 225–236.

24.

Stringer

Turan

McCormick

, et al. HIV-related stigma among healthcare providers in the deep south. AIDS Behav 2016; 20(1): 115–125.

25.

Rice

Fletcher

Akingbade

, et al. Quality of care for Black and Latina women living with HIV in the US: a qualitative study. Int J Equity Health 2020; 19: 1–3.

26.

Geter

Sutton

Hubbard McCree

Social and structural determinants of HIV treatment and care among black women living with HIV infection: a systematic review: 2005–2016. AIDS Care 2018; 30(4): 409–416.

27.

Andrasik

Broder

Oseso

, et al. Stigma, implicit bias, and long-lasting prevention interventions to end the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic. Am J Public Health 2020; 110(1): 67–68.

28.

Hall

Chapman

Lee

, et al. Implicit racial/ethnic bias among health care professionals and its influence on health care outcomes: a systematic review. Am J Public Health 2015; 105(12): e60–e76.

29.

Maina

Belton

Ginzberg

, et al. A decade of studying implicit racial/ethnic bias in healthcare providers using the implicit association test. Soc Sci Med 2018; 199: 219–229.

30.

Birkhead

Klein

Warren

, et al. Program and policy interventions for preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV in New York State. J Public Health Manag Pract 2010; 16(6): 492–504.

31.

Levison

Williams

Moore

, et al. Increasing use of rapid HIV testing in labor and delivery among women with no prenatal care: a local initiative. Matern Child Health J 2011; 15(6): 822–826.

32.

Salvant Valentine

Caldwell

Tailor

. Effect of CDC 2006 revised HIV testing recommendations for adults, adolescents, pregnant women, and newborns on state laws, 2018. Public Health Rep 2020; 135(Suppl. 1): 189S–196S.

HIV testing during pregnancy among women with a recent live birth—Seven US States,2016–2019

Abstract

Background:

Objectives:

Design:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Statistical analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declarations

ORCID iD

Disclaimer

References