NURS 503 Week 7 Population Health Intervention Project Annotated Bibliography Example

Annotated Bibliography for a Population Health Intervention: Routine Opt-Out HIV Screening and Linkage to Care in the Emergency Department

Branson, B. M., Handsfield, H. H., Lampe, M. A., Janssen, R. S., Taylor, A. W., Lyss, S. B., & Clark, J. E. (2006). Revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults, adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care settings. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 55(RR-14), 1-17.

Branson et al. (2006) set out the CDC recommendations that changed HIV testing in health care settings, advising routine opt-out screening for patients aged 13 to 64 and removing the requirement for separate written consent and prevention counseling as part of routine screening. The document is a consensus guideline rather than a study, and some state laws lagged behind it, but it remains the foundation for opt-out testing in emergency departments and is still cited by later guidance. In the final paper it will establish the policy basis for the intervention in the background section and support the decision to integrate consent into general consent for care.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024). Estimated HIV incidence and prevalence in the United States, 2018-2022 (HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report, Vol. 29, No. 1). https://www.cdc.gov/hiv-data/nhss/estimated-hiv-incidence-and-prevalence.html

In this supplemental surveillance report, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2024) estimate HIV incidence, prevalence and knowledge of status nationally and by group. It shows that about 87 of every 100 people with HIV knew their status in 2022 and that awareness among those aged 13 to 24 rose from about 42 to 56 per 100 between 2018 and 2022. The estimates rely on modeling from diagnosis data and carry a reporting lag, which limits their use for local evaluation. The final paper will use it to define the problem and to justify giving priority to younger patients.

Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health, 89(9), 1322-1327. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322

Glasgow et al. (1999) introduced RE-AIM, a five-part lens covering how many people a program touches, whether it works, whether settings take it up, whether staff deliver it as designed and whether it survives the first year, arguing that efficacy alone overstates public health impact. The framework is widely used and practical, though it is a planning and evaluation tool rather than evidence of effect, and the article is older than most sources here. It will structure the evaluation section of the final paper, pairing each dimension with a measure, for instance reach as the share of eligible visits in which the test is offered.

Haukoos, J., Hopkins, E., Campbell, J. D., Lyons, M. S., Rothman, R. E., Hsieh, Y. H., White, D. A. E., Trent, S., Al-Tayyib, A. A., Gardner, E. M., Sabel, A. L., & Rowan, S. E. (2024). Cost-effectiveness of HIV screening in emergency departments: Results from the pragmatic randomized HIV Testing Using Enhanced Screening Techniques in Emergency Departments trial. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 84(3), 234-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2024.03.009

This economic evaluation nested in the same trial estimated annualized program costs of $111,861 for nontargeted screening, $88,629 for enhanced targeted and $70,599 for traditional targeted screening, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $25,586 for nontargeted compared with traditional targeted screening (Haukoos et al., 2024). Costs came from actual trial operations and time-motion data, a strength, but results were sensitive to HIV prevalence, which may be lower in a rural Virginia department, so the final paper will present the cost per new diagnosis as a range rather than a single figure. The final paper will use these figures to build the budget and to discuss cost in the sustainability section.

Haukoos, J. S., Lyons, M. S., Rothman, R. E., White, D. A. E., Hopkins, E., Bucossi, M., Ruffner, A. H., Ancona, R. M., Hsieh, Y. H., Peterson, S. C., Signer, D., Toerper, M. F., Saheed, M., Pfeil, S. K., Todorovic, T., Al-Tayyib, A. A., Bradley-Springer, L., Campbell, J. D., Gardner, E. M., . . . HIV TESTED Trial Investigators. (2021). Comparison of HIV screening strategies in the emergency department: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open, 4(7), Article e2117763. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.17763

Haukoos et al. (2021) randomized 76,561 visits at four urban emergency departments to nontargeted, enhanced targeted or traditional targeted opt-out screening. Targeted strategies were not superior: nontargeted screening completed the most tests and found 10 new diagnoses against 7 in each targeted arm, with no significant difference in diagnosis rates. The pragmatic design and size are strengths; the urban setting and the low number of diagnoses limit precision and transfer to smaller hospitals. The final paper will use it to justify nontargeted screening of all eligible patients rather than risk-based selection.

Jones, A. T., Haukoos, J., Hopkins, E., Lyons, M. S., Rothman, R. E., White, D. A. E., Hsieh, Y. H., Joseph, K. M., Murray, E., & Rowan, S. E. (2025). Effect of routine opt-out HIV screening on emergency department operational metrics: Results from the pragmatic randomized HIV TESTED trial. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 86(3), 240-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2025.04.011

Jones et al. (2025) examined 377,392 visits to test whether routine screening slowed emergency care. Average waits grew by roughly 1.4 minutes with screening, departures before completed treatment edged up slightly, and admitted patients did not stay longer. The quasi-experimental time-sample design is weaker than the parent trial's randomization, but the large sample makes the estimates stable. The final paper will cite it in the barriers section to answer staff concerns about workload and flow, and it supports adding wait time as a balancing measure.

Li, Z., Purcell, D. W., Sansom, S. L., Hayes, D., & Hall, H. I. (2019). Vital signs: HIV transmission along the continuum of care, United States, 2016. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 68(11), 267-272. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6811e1

Li et al. (2019) modeled 2016 transmissions across the care continuum and found that people unaware of their infection generated about 38% of transmissions and people diagnosed but not in care about 43%. As a model, it depends on surveillance and behavioral survey inputs, but it comes from the agency responsible for national HIV data. The final paper will use it twice: to show why diagnosis matters and to argue that linkage to care must be part of the intervention. It also explains why the navigator, rather than the test, is the most important added cost.

Montoy, J. C. C., Dow, W. H., & Kaplan, B. C. (2018). Cash incentives versus defaults for HIV testing: A randomized clinical trial. PLOS ONE, 13(7), Article e0199833. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199833

Randomizing 8,715 emergency patients between 13 and 64 at one urban hospital, Montoy et al. (2018) produced the single strongest piece of evidence for this project. They compared opt-in, active-choice and opt-out offers and cash incentives. Opt-out offers raised acceptance by 23.9 percentage points and active choice by 11.5 points compared with opt-in, while $5 and $10 incentives raised it by 10.5 and 15 points. The randomized design is strong; the single urban site limits generalization, and acceptance in a rural department may start from a different baseline, which the final paper will acknowledge. Because the trial also found that incentives added less on top of a default than alone, it argues for spending the project's limited budget on the navigator rather than on payments. The final paper will use it as the central evidence for making the test a default in the triage script and order set.

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (2019). Screening for HIV infection: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 321(23), 2326-2336. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.6587

The Task Force's grade A advice covers everyone between 15 and 65 plus at-risk people outside that range, resting on a systematic review of benefits and harms (U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, 2019). Its strength is its rigorous evidence review; it addresses primary care more than emergency settings. The final paper will use it to define the eligible population of 15 to 65 and to explain why most insurers cover the test without cost sharing.