Adherence Estimates Research Articles

Clinical risk management in eye outpatient surgery: a new surgical safety checklist for cataract surgery and intravitreal anti-VEGF injection

A database study to test a new model of surgical safety checklist for eye surgery in the outpatient operating room, especially for cataract surgery and intravitreal anti-VEGF injections. WHO Surgical Safety Checklist analysis, and changes to obtain a customized surgical safety checklist for eye surgery. Testing of the new checklist in the outpatient operating room of the Institute of Ophthalmology, University of Modena during a period of 4 months (January-April 2011). All cataract surgery and intravitreal anti-VEGF operations were included in the study, and controlled by the new surgical safety checklist. The percentage of answers to each safety check was calculated to obtain an estimate of adherence to our new checklist. Eight hundred and forty nine procedures (390 cataract, 452 anti-VEGF injections, seven combined surgery) were analyzed. The study showed a high level of adherence to the majority of the safety checks in the checklist. Important differences were identified in consent confirmation (correct confirmation in 99.76 %, no confirmation in 0.24 %), surgical site marking (correct marking in 99.29 %, no marking in 0.71 %), patient cooperation during operation (95.17 % of patients were cooperative, 4.83 % of patients were uncooperative), adherence to antibiotic prophylaxis (correct prophylaxis in 93.17 %, no prophylaxis in 6.83 %), critical situation during surgical procedures (no critical situation in 91.76 %, critical situation in 8.24 %) The study showed a high level of adherence to the checklist. A surgical safety checklist could improve the management of an eye surgery operating room.

50% adherence of patients suffering chronic conditions--where is the evidence?

The World Health Organization states that in a widespread report that “in developed countries, adherence among patients suffering chronic diseases averages only 50%”. We followed the quoted references to this statement. The data basis for this statement is one randomized controlled trial (RCT) on hypertensive steel workers in Canada published in 1975 and one study dealing with neurotic outpatients in Pennsylvania, USA published in 1965. Both studies are not suitable to assume such generalized adherence estimation and are not for different reasons transferable to today’s patient care.

Dosing frequency and medication adherence in chronic disease.

Prior research has shown a decrease in medication adherence as dosing frequency increases; however, meta-analyses have not been able to demonstrate a significant inverse relationship between dosing frequency and adherence when comparing twice-daily versus once-daily dosing. To determine the effect of scheduled dosing frequency on medication adherence in patients with chronic diseases. A systematic literature search of Medline and Embase from January 1986 to December 2011 and a hand search of references were performed to identify eligible studies. Randomized and observational studies were included if they utilized a prospective design, assessed adult patients with chronic diseases, evaluated scheduled oral medications taken 1 to 4 times daily, and measured medication adherence for at least 1 month using an electronic monitoring device. Manual searches of reference sections of identified studies and systematic reviews were also performed to find other potentially relevant articles. Standard definitions for medication taking, regimen, and timing adherence were used and evaluated. Studies were pooled using a multivariate linear mixed-model method to conduct meta-regression accounting for both random and fixed effects, weighted by the inverse of the variance of medication adherence. Fifty-one studies, comprising 65, 76, and 47 dosing frequency arms for the taking, regimen, and timing adherence endpoints were included. Unadjusted adherence estimates were highest when the least stringent definition, taking adherence, was used (range for dosing frequencies: 80.1%-93.0%) and lowest when the most stringent definition, timing adherence, was used (range for dosing frequencies: 18.8%-76.9%). In multivariate meta-regression analyses, the adjusted weighted mean percentage adherence rates for all regimens dosed more frequently than once per day were significantly lower compared with once-daily regimens (for 2-times, 3-times, and 4-times daily regimens, respectively: differences for taking adherence: -6.7%, -13.5%, and -19.2%; regimen adherence: -13.1%, -24.9%, and -23.1%; and timing adherence: -26.7%, -39.0%, and -54.2%). Patients with chronic diseases appear to be more adherent with once-daily compared with more frequently scheduled medication regimens. The use of more stringent definitions of adherence magnified these findings.

Patterns of antiretroviral therapy adherence and impact on HIV RNA among patients in North America

Adherence to antiretroviral therapies (ART) is the strongest predictor of viral suppression among individuals infected with HIV, however, limited data exists to understand the patterns of adherence that confer the greatest benefit across different ART regimens. Longitudinal data pooled from 16 studies conducted between 1997 and 2009 across the United States. Adherence was measured using Medication Event Monitoring System. Percentage of time with sufficient drug concentrations (covered time) and the length of the longest treatment interruption during the 28 days prior to plasma HIV-RNA measurements were calculated. Logistic regression with generalized estimating equations was used to estimate medication-specific adherence estimates on detectable HIV-RNA (>400 copies/ml). One thousand and eighty-eight participants with 3795 HIV-RNA measures were studied. Both lower covered time and greater longest interruption showed dose-response relationships with the odds of detectable HIV-RNA; however, estimates did not vary by medication regimen. Compared with 93-100% coverage, periods of 0-25% covered time had a three-fold increased risk of detectable HIV-RNA [odds ratio (OR) = 3.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.48-4.19]. Similarly, compared to longest interruptions of 0-48 h, longest interruptions of 21-28 days had a nearly four-fold increased risk of detectable HIV-RNA (OR = 3.65, 95% CI: 2.77, 4.81). We found that adherence was consistently strongly associated with treatment response across ART regimens. Of the patterns of adherence, longer interruptions may have greater impact than covered time. Future research should investigate additional methods for examining adherence patterns, understanding the determinants of consecutive missed doses and the evaluation of interventions designed to address interruptions in treatment.

Adherence to Drugs That Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: Meta-analysis on 376,162 Patients

ObjectiveCombination therapy, specifically with aspirin, cholesterol and blood pressure-lowering drugs, substantially reduces the risk of coronary heart disease, but the full preventive effect is only realized if treatment continues indefinitely. Our objective was to provide a summary estimate of adherence to drugs that prevent coronary heart disease, according to drug class and use in people who have had a myocardial infarction (secondary prevention) and people who have not (primary prevention). MethodsA meta-analysis of data on 376,162 patients from 20 studies assessing adherence using prescription refill frequency for the following 7 drug classes was performed: aspirin, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, thiazides, and statins. Meta-regression was used to examine the effects of age, payment, and treatment duration. ResultsThe summary estimate for adherence across all studies was 57% (95% confidence interval [CI], 50-64) after a median of 24 months. There were statistically significant differences in adherence between primary and secondary prevention: 50% (CI, 45-56) and 66% (CI, 56-75), respectively (P=.012). Adherence was lower for thiazides (42%) than for angiotensin receptor blockers (61%) in primary prevention (P=.02). There were no other statistically significant differences between any of the drug classes in primary or secondary prevention studies. Adherence decreased by 0.15% points/month (P=.07) and was unrelated to age or whether patients paid for their pills. ConclusionAdherence to preventive treatment is poor and little related to class of drug, suggesting that side effects are not the main cause. General, rather than class-specific, measures at improving adherence are needed.

Comparison of pharmacy-based measures of medication adherence

BackgroundPharmacy databases are commonly used to assess medication usage, and a number of measures have been developed to measure patients’ adherence to medication. An extensive literature now supports these measures, although few studies have systematically compared the properties of different adherence measures.MethodsAs part of an 18-month randomized clinical trial to assess the impact of automated telephone reminders on adherence to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) among 6903 adult members of a managed care organization, we computed eight pharmacy-based measures of ICS adherence using outpatient pharmacy dispensing records obtained from the health plan’s electronic medical record. We used simple descriptive statistics to compare the relative performance characteristics of these measures.ResultsComparative analysis found a relative upward bias in adherence estimates for those measures that require at least one dispensing event to be calculated. Measurement strategies that require a second dispensing event evidence even greater upward bias. These biases are greatest with shorter observation times. Furthermore, requiring a dispensing to be calculated meant that these measures could not be defined for large numbers of individuals (17-32 % of participants in this study). Measurement strategies that do not require a dispensing event to be calculated appear least vulnerable to these biases and can be calculated for everyone. However they do require additional assumptions and data (e.g., pre-intervention dispensing data) to support their validity.ConclusionsMany adherence measures require one, or sometimes two, dispensings in order to be defined. Since such measures assume all dispensed medication is used as directed, they have a built in upward bias that is especially pronounced when they are calculated over relatively short timeframes (< 9 months). Less biased measurement strategies that do not require a dispensing event are available, but require additional data to support their validity.Trial registrationThe study was funded by grant R01HL83433 from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and is filed as study NCT00414817 in the clinicaltrials.gov database.

Implementing microbicides in low-income countries

The magnitude of the global human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic is determined by women from lower income countries, specifically sub-Saharan Africa. Microbicides offer women who are unable to negotiate safe sex practices a self-initiated HIV prevention method. Of note, is its potential to yield significant public health benefits even with relatively conservative efficacy, coverage and user adherence estimates, making microbicides an effective intervention to invest scarce healthcare resources. Existing healthcare delivery systems provide an excellent opportunity to identify women at highest risk for infection and to also provide an access point to initiate microbicide use. Innovative quality improvement approaches, which strengthen existing sexual reproductive health services and include HIV testing, and linkages to care and treatment services, provide an opportunity to lay the foundations for wide-scale provision of microbicides. The potential to enhance health outcomes in women and infants and potentially affect rates of new HIV infection may soon be realised.

Effect of dosing frequency on chronic cardiovascular disease medication adherence

Background:Many cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) require patients to take one or more long term medications, often administered multiple times a day. We sought to determine the effect of chronic CVD medication dosing frequency on medication adherence.Methods:A search of Medline and Embase from 1986 to December 2011 was performed. Included studies used a prospective design, assessed adults with chronic CVDs, evaluated scheduled oral medications administered one to four times daily, and measured adherence for ≥1 month using an electronic monitoring device. Mixed linear model meta-regression was used to determine how dosing frequency affected adherence using three definitions of increasing strictness: taking, regimen and timing adherence.Results:A total of 29 studies, comprising 41, 29, and 27 dosing frequency arms for the taking, regimen and timing adherence definitions were included. Crude pooled adherence estimates were highest when the lenient taking definition was assessed (range for dosing frequencies: 80.1%–93.1%), and lowest when the strictest timing definition was assessed (range: 57.1%–76.3%). Upon meta-regression, the adjusted weighted mean percentage adherence for twice and three times daily dosing regimens (no studies evaluated four times daily regimens), were 6.9% and 13.7% lower than once daily regimens for the taking, 14.0% and 27.5% lower for the regimen, and 22.9% and 30.4% lower for the timing adherence definition (p < 0.01 for all).Limitations:The presence of residual confounding and publication bias cannot be ruled out.Conclusion:Patients appear to be more adherent with once daily dosing compared with more frequently scheduled chronic CVD medication regimens. This finding is magnified when more stringent definitions of adherence are used.

Adherence to Antidepressant Treatment: What the Doctor Thinks and What the Patient Says

Adherence to antidepressant treatment has been shown to range from 30 to 70%. The aim of this study was to compare the patient's self-report of adherence with the doctors' estimation of adherence and therapeutic alliance in 104 outpatients with mood and/or anxiety disorder treated with antidepressants. The adherence scores estimated by the patients and the doctors were significantly different, the doctors underestimating adherence in 29% of cases and overestimating it in 31% of cases compared to the patients' evaluation. Adherence measured by drug plasma concentration, despite being higher than expected from previously published reports, was in line with the patients' self-reported score but not the doctors' estimation. Finally, the patients' and the doctors' Helping Alliance scores were not related to adherence self-report.

Accuracy of Measures of Medication Adherence in a Cholesterol-Lowering Regimen

This study examined the concordance between multiple measures of adherence, as well as sensitivity to detection of poor adherers, specificity, and predictive validity using a daily cholesterol-lowering regimen. Participants (N = 180) aged 24 to 60 years participated in an adherence ancillary study in a clinical trial. Males constituted 53.9% of this well-educated, community sample. Data on adherence were collected over a 6-month period, using electronic monitoring, self-report, specific recall, and pill counts. Electronically monitored (odds ratio [OR] = 5.348) and Shea self-report (OR = 2.678) predicted cholesterol lowering. Days (78.9%) and intervals (84.2%) adherent and the Shea (73.7%) were sensitive to the detection of poor adherers. Moderate associations were found between measures of the same type. Low correlations were found otherwise. The electronic monitor was the most accurate and informative measure. The Shea self-report was the most accurate brief, global estimate of adherence. Other measures were not associated with clinical outcome or sensitive to poor adherence.

Comparing Medication Adherence Methods in Lipid-Modifying Therapy

Background: Investigators have employed a number of different methods to calculate adherence estimates for patients taking lipid-modifying therapy (LMT), including measures with different numerator and denominator options. Although at least one method is known to correlate well with cardiovascular outcomes, most have not been evaluated in outcomes studies. Objectives: To evaluate different methods for measuring adherence, using LMT as a case example, and to determine whether estimates for adherence differ statistically and/or whether different methods can lead to different conclusions about patient adherence. Methods: Adherence ratios were calculated using 8 different methods for 12,448 patients who were in a managed-care system and were considered new starts with statin therapy. The calculated measures were compared and tested for differences. Patients were categorized as adherent by each method, using a threshold of 0.8, and the proportions of patients categorized as adherent were compared for differences between adherence calculation methods. Results: Adherence ratios calculated with like observation intervals did not vary substantially, regardless of which method for measuring medication availability was used. Those calculated with different observation intervals had substantial variability. Mean adherence ratios ranged between 0.777 and 0.798 for difference in days' observation intervals; they ranged between 0.618 and 0.630 for the predefined interval. Differences between ratios calculated using these different denominators were statistically significant (p &lt; 0.008). Correlations between ratios were statistically significant for all comparisons (p &lt; 0.001). Correlation coefficients ( r) were 0.64 for comparisons between ratios with different denominators versus 1.0 for comparisons with like denominators. Categorization as adherent or nonadherent differed between the methods for about 20% of patients. Conclusions: Significant differences were found to be based on observation period but not on medication availability. Studies of adherence should be interpreted with caution depending on which method is used, and particular interest should be paid to whether the choice of methods is consistent with study objectives and to the observation interval, as different methods may lead to different conclusions about patient adherence. Further research in LMT and other therapeutic areas is needed to determine which methods correlate best with positive patient outcomes, such as reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular events.

EFFECT OF DOSING FREQUENCY ON CHRONIC CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE MEDICATION ADHERENCE

AbstractBackground:Many cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) require patients to take one or more long term medications, often administered multiple times a day. We sought to determine the effect of chronic CVD medication dosing frequency on medication adherence.Methods:A search of Medline and Embase from 1986 to December 2011 was performed. Included studies used a prospective design, assessed adults with chronic CVDs, evaluated scheduled oral medications administered one to four times daily, and measured adherence for ≥1 month using an electronic monitoring device. Mixed linear model meta-regression was used to determine how dosing frequency affected adherence using three definitions of increasing strictness: taking, regimen and timing adherence.Results:A total of 29 studies, comprising 41, 29, and 27 dosing frequency arms for the taking, regimen and timing adherence definitions were included. Crude pooled adherence estimates were highest when the lenient taking definition was assessed (range for dosing freque...

Adherence to adjuvant therapy in post-menopausal breast cancer patients: a review

This review aimed to address the concept of adherence to adjuvant therapy in post-menopausal women. Thirteen studies were included in the review. Study quality was assessed using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and CONSORT tools. Adherence to adjuvant medication was assessed using a variety of methods. Estimates of adherence rates to adjuvant therapies indicated that of the post-menopausal women prescribed adjuvant therapy, between 15% and 55% were adherent to tamoxifen from 1 to 5 years of follow-up, albeit two studies proposed adherence rates greater than 85%; these data may be flawed due to the methods of data collection. Between 31% and 73% of women were adherent to anastrozole, letrozole or exemestane from 1 year of treatment. These estimates of adherence are based on a variety of reported records including self-report. Current evidence on the assessment of adherence to adjuvant therapies in post-menopausal women indicate that the adherence rates of medication maybe suboptimal and therefore therapeutic efficacy is questionable and may increase the risk of cancer recurrence and reduce disease survival rates. Concerted research is needed to investigate adherence rates, examine patient health beliefs in the medication management of post-menopausal breast cancer patients and also develop new measures to assess adherence with medication.

Improving the validity of determining medication adherence from electronic health record medications orders

We developed an accurate and valid medication order algorithm to identify from electronic health records the definitive medication order intended for dispensing and applied this process to identify a cohort of patients and to stratify them into one of three medication adherence groups: early non-persistence, primary non-adherence, or ongoing adherence. We identified medication order data from electronic health record tables, obtained the orders, and linked the orders to dispensings. These steps were then used to identify patients newly prescribed antihypertensive, antidiabetic, or antihyperlipidemic medications and to determine the adherence group of each patient. Record review validated each process step, thus increasing the accuracy of group assignment as well as the criteria used to select patients. This work is an important first step to accurately identify study-specific patient adherence cohorts and allow more comprehensive estimates of population medication adherence.

A Systematic Review of Adherence to Cardiovascular Medications in Resource-Limited Settings

Medications are a cornerstone of the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease. Long-term medication adherence has been the subject of increasing attention in the developed world but has received little attention in resource-limited settings, where the burden of disease is particularly high and growing rapidly. To evaluate prevalence and predictors of non-adherence to cardiovascular medications in this context, we systematically reviewed the peer-reviewed literature. We performed an electronic search of Ovid Medline, Embase and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 1966 to August 2010 for studies that measured adherence to cardiovascular medications in the developing world. A DerSimonian-Laird random effects method was used to pool the adherence estimates across studies. Between-study heterogeneity was estimated with an I(2) statistic and studies were stratified by disease group and the method by which adherence was assessed. Predictors of non-adherence were also examined. Our search identified 2,353 abstracts, of which 76 studies met our inclusion criteria. Overall adherence was 57.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 52.3% to 62.7%; I(2) 0.98) and was consistent across study subgroups. Studies that assessed adherence with pill counts reported higher levels of adherence (62.1%, 95% CI 49.7% to 73.8%; I(2) 0.83) than those using self-report (54.6%, 95% CI 47.7% to 61.5%; I(2) 0.93). Adherence did not vary by geographic region, urban vs. rural settings, or the complexity of a patient's medication regimen. The most common predictors of poor adherence included poor knowledge, negative perceptions about medication, side effects and high medication costs. Our study indicates that adherence to cardiovascular medication in resource-limited countries is sub-optimal and appears very similar to that observed in resource-rich countries. Efforts to improve adherence in resource-limited settings should be a priority given the burden of heart disease in this context, the central role of medications in their management, and the clinical and economic consequences of non-adherence.

A comparison of two methods for estimating refill adherence to statins in Sweden: the RARE project

To analyse and compare refill adherence to statins estimated with two different methods with a focus on sensitivity to definitions. Individuals aged 18-85 years who filled a statin prescription for the first time in 1.5 years during 1 January-30 June 2007 were followed until emigration or death or until 2 years after their first statin purchase. The data were collected via linkage between the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register, the National Patient Register and the Total Population Register. Days' supply was estimated based on amount dispensed and prescribed dosage. Refill adherence was estimated with the continuous measure of medication acquisition (CMA) and the maximum gap method (cut-off 45 days). The impact of altering definitions, for example, regarding hospitalisations, length of observation period and management of overlapping supply, was analysed. The study included 36, 661 individuals (mean age 64 years, 47% women). The median proportion of days with statins was 95%, and 76% were classified as adherent with a cut-off at ≥ 80% with CMA. With the maximum gap method, 65% were adherent. Disregarding hospitalisations did not alter the results. Emigration or death at least one year after statin initiation was associated with a lower adherence with both methods, and a shorter observation period and adding overlapping supply to the subsequent prescription increased the adherence estimates. The choice of method and definitions, particularly regarding the management of overlapping supplies and the length of observation period, has a substantial impact on estimates of refill adherence to statins.

Importance of Including Early Nonadherence in Estimations of Medication Adherence

Many medication adherence metrics are based on refill rates determined from pharmacy claims databases. However, these methods do not incorporate assessment of nonadherence to new prescriptions when those prescriptions are never dispensed (primary nonadherence), or dispensed only once (early nonpersistence). As a result, published studies may overestimate adherence, but the extent of overestimation posed by not considering patients with primary nonadherence and early nonpersistence has not been assessed. To estimate the magnitude of misestimation in adherence estimates that results from not including patients with primary nonadherence and early nonpersistence. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 15,417 patients enrolled in an integrated health care delivery system who were newly prescribed an antihypertensive, antidiabetic, or antihyperlipidemic medication. We linked prescription orders to medication dispensings. Based on dispensing and refill rates, we stratified patients into primary nonadherent, early nonpersistent, and ongoing dispensings groups. Adherence was estimated using the proportion of days covered (PDC). Standardized observation periods were applied across all groups. A total of 1142 (7.4%) patients were primarily nonadherent, 3356 (21.8%) demonstrated early nonpersistence, and 10,919 (70.8%) patients received ongoing dispensings, with a mean PDC of 84%. Not including primarily nonadherent and early nonpersistent patients in calculations resulted in adherence estimates overestimated by 9-18%. When medication adherence is estimated from pharmacy claims databases, adherence estimates are substantially inflated because primarily nonadherent and early nonpersistent patients are not included in the estimations. An implication of this incorrect estimation is potential distortion of the true relationship between medication adherence and clinical outcomes.

Treatment Integrity Assessment: How Estimates of Adherence, Quality, and Exposure Influence Interpretation of Implementation

The assessment of treatment integrity is important for determining the effectiveness of an intervention. Treatment integrity, a multidimensional construct, can be evaluated in two ways: by session or component. In this study, adherence, quality, and exposure data are estimated using permanent product data from implementation of the PAX Good Behavior Game to demonstrate how varied assessment of treatment integrity can influence interpretation of implementation. Implications for implementers and school-based decisions are discussed.

Intervention Adherence for Research and Practice: Necessity or Triage Outcome?

Intervention integrity or adherence describes qualities of carrying out an intervention plan and in research is fundamentally linked to experimental validity questions addressed by measurement of independent and dependent variables. Integrity has been well described in conceptual writing but has been a continuing thorny subject in research and practice with some possibility of misunderstandings. In consultation practice, in contrast to research, adherence questions may be best viewed as a triage situation in that teams examine risks and costs of decisions and plan for sufficient intervention implementation checks accordingly. Furthermore, in consultation practice the measurement of intervention adherence is not necessarily needed for internal validity arguments if internal validity evidence is a key characteristic of prior research used in problem solving. However, adherence estimates remain critical for many aspects of decision making. As much thought and resources may be dedicated to the measurement of intervention adherence as are dedicated to the measurement of dependent variables or outcome measures for both consultation practice and research depending on the decision purpose.

Reported referral for genetic counseling or BRCA 1/2 testing among United States physicians

Genetic counseling and testing is recommended for women at high but not average risk of ovarian cancer. National estimates of physician adherence to genetic counseling and testing recommendations are lacking. Using a vignette-based study, we surveyed 3200 United States family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician/gynecologists and received 1878 (62%) responses. The questionnaire included an annual examination vignette asking about genetic counseling and testing. The vignette varied patient age, race, insurance status, and ovarian cancer risk. Estimates of physician adherence to genetic counseling and testing recommendations were weighted to the United States primary care physician population. Multivariable logistic regression identified independent patient and physician predictors of adherence. For average-risk women, 71% of physicians self-reported adhering to recommendations against genetic counseling or testing. In multivariable modeling, predictors of adherence against referral/testing included black versus white race (relative risk [RR], 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.31), Medicaid versus private insurance (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.29), and rural versus urban location. Among high-risk women, 41% of physicians self-reported adhering to recommendations to refer for genetic counseling or testing. Predictors of adherence for referral/testing were younger patient age [35 vs 51 years [RR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.41-2.24]), physician sex (female vs male [RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.07-1.64]), and obstetrician/gynecologist versus family medicine specialty (RR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.31-2.05). For both average-risk and high-risk women, physician-estimated ovarian cancer risk was the most powerful predictor of recommendation adherence. Physicians reported that they would refer many average-risk women and would not refer many high-risk women for genetic counseling/testing. Intervention efforts, including promotion of accurate risk assessment, are needed.