RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S. (EHE) aims to end the HIV epidemic by focusing on 57 jurisdictions most impacted by HIV. METHODS: Using 2021 data from the National HIV Prevention Program Monitoring and Evaluation system, we calculated distributions of CDC-funded HIV tests and HIV testing services outcomes in EHE and non-EHE jurisdictions. We conducted chi-square tests and robust Poisson regression to compare differences in outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 1,753,873 tests conducted, a greater proportion were conducted in EHE (65.7%) versus non-EHE (34.3%) jurisdictions (p<0.001). Greater number of persons newly diagnosed were identified in EHE (n=5,861) versus non-EHE (n=2,329) jurisdictions; newly diagnosed positivity was higher in EHE (0.5%) versus non-EHE (0.4%; PR=1.31, 95% CI: 1.25-1.38) jurisdictions. Among persons newly diagnosed, there were no differences in proportion of linkage to care within 30 days in EHE jurisdictions (77.9%) versus non-EHE jurisdictions (77.1%; PR=1.01, 95% CI: 0.95-1.07). Proportion of persons newly diagnosed interviewed for partner services was lower in EHE (69.0%) versus non-EHE (84.8%; PR=0.81, 95% CI: 0.76-0.87) jurisdictions. CONCLUSION: CDC-funded HIV testing services in EHE jurisdictions conducted more HIV testing and diagnosed more persons. Jurisdictions can further expand HIV testing and related services to continue striving toward EHE goals.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Information on knowledge of public health professionals about health aspects of the human-animal interface, referred to as One Health, is limited. The objective of this study was to identify factors associated with animal welfare attitudes, practices, and One Health awareness among US Public Health Service (USPHS) officers to assess preparedness for public health response. METHODS: USPHS officers participated in an online, self-administered survey from February 15 through March 2, 2018. A total of 1133 of 6474 (17.5%) USPHS officers responded. We collected information on officers' demographic characteristics, animal welfare attitudes and practices, volunteer and work exposure to animals, and One Health knowledge. We compared (1) One Health knowledge and animal work exposure (deployment, regular assignment, or none) and (2) animal welfare importance and animal work exposure. To adjust for demographic characteristics associated with One Health knowledge, we used multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: One-third of nonveterinary officers reported encountering animals during deployment, and 65% reported that animal welfare was very or extremely important. We found no difference in One Health knowledge between nonveterinary officers who participated in deployments involving animals and nonveterinary officers who had no work exposure to animals (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.11; 95% CI, 0.71-1.75). Nonveterinary officers who participated in animal-related public health activities during regular assignment were more likely to have One Health knowledge than nonveterinary officers who had no work exposure to animals (aOR = 7.88; 95% CI, 5.36-11.59). CONCLUSIONS: One Health knowledge and awareness should be further explored in the current US public health workforce to identify training needs for emergency preparedness and other collaborative opportunities.