Antenatal HIV
Screening
Programme
Monitoring Report
January to June 2014
Copyright
The copyright owner of this publication is the Ministry of Health, which is part of the New
Zealand Crown. The Ministry of Health permits the reproduction of material from this
publication without prior notification, provided that all the following conditions are met:

the content is not distorted or changed

the information is not sold

the material is not used to promote or endorse any product or service

the material is not used in an inappropriate or misleading context having regard to the
nature of the material

any relevant disclaimers, qualifications or caveats included in the publication are
reproduced

the New Zealand Ministry of Health is acknowledged as the source
Disclaimer
This publication reports on information provided to the Ministry of Health by district
health boards. Its purpose is to inform discussion and assist the ongoing development of
the Antenatal HIV Screening Programme. All care has been taken in the production of this
report, and the data was deemed to be accurate at the time of publication. However, the
data may be subject to updates over time as further information is received. Before
quoting or using this information, it is advisable to check the current status with the
Ministry of Health.
Acknowledgements
Many people have assisted in the production of this report. In particular, the Ministry of
Health would like to acknowledge those who have collected this information at the
laboratories and district health boards, extracted and verified the information, and
facilitated the analysis of the data.
Citation: Ministry of Health. 2014. Antenatal HIV Screening Programme: Monitoring
Report January to June 2014.
Wellington: Ministry of Health.
ISBN 978-0-478-42849-0 (online)
HP 5926
Published in 2014
by the Ministry of Health
PO Box 5013, Wellington 6145, New Zealand
This document is available at www.nsu.govt.nz
Contents
Executive summary
v
1
Introduction
1
1.1
Why offer screening for HIV in pregnancy?
1
1.2
Background to the universal offer of HIV screening in pregnancy in
New Zealand
1
1.3
Programme monitoring and data collection
2
1.4
Information included in this report
3
1.5
Screening uptake calculations
4
1.6
Data limitations
5
2
3
Screening uptake
7
2.1
Antenatal HIV screening uptake by DHB
7
2.2
Antenatal HIV screening uptake by requestor
8
2.3
Antenatal HIV screening uptake by age group
11
2.4
Antenatal HIV screening uptake by ethnicity
13
2.5
Antenatal HIV screening uptake by NZDep
15
Initial reactive and confirmed positive results
17
3.1
Reactive EIA screening tests results
17
3.2
Confirmed HIV positive cases
17
References
18
Appendix 1: History of data collection and reporting processes
19
Appendix 2: Selected data fields and descriptions
20
Antenatal HIV Screening Programme:
Monitoring Report 1 January to 30 June 2014
iii
List of Tables
Table 1: Data provided by DHB, 1 January to 30 June 2014
3
Table 2: Records submitted with missing NHI numbers, 1 January to 30 June 2014
6
Table 3: Screening uptake by DHB, 1 January to 30 June 2014
7
Table 4: Screening uptake by requestor type, 1 January to 30 June 2014
9
Table 5: Screening uptake by DHB and requestor type, 1 January to 30 June 2014
10
Table 6: Screening uptake by age group, 1 January to 30 June 2014
11
Table 7: Screening uptake by DHB and age group, 1 January to 30 June 2014
12
Table 8: Screening uptake by ethnicity, 1 January to 30 June 2014
13
Table 9: Screening uptake by DHB and ethnicity, 1 January to 30 June 2014
14
Table 10: Screening uptake by NZDep2006 decile, 1 January to 30 June 2014
15
Table 11: Screening uptake by DHB and NZDep2006 decile, 1 January to 30 June 2014
16
Table 12: Initial reactive screening test results and confirmed HIV positive results, 1
January to 30 June 2014
17
List of Figures
Figure 1: Data collection process from April 2010 to present
2
Figure 2: Screening uptake by DHB, 1 January to 30 June 2014
8
Figure 3: Screening uptake by requestor type, 1 January to 30 June 2014
9
Figure 4: Screening uptake by age group, 1 January to 30 June 2014
11
Figure 5: Screening uptake by ethnicity, 1 January to 30 June 2014
13
Figure 6: Screening uptake by NZDep2006 decile, 1 January to 30 June 2014
15
iv
Antenatal HIV Screening Programme:
Monitoring Report 1 January to 30 June 2014
Executive summary
This report presents the data for the first half of 2014 and covers a six-month period of antenatal
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening.
The information in this report is based on screening that occurred from 1 January to 3o June
2014. All district health boards (DHBs) are providing antenatal HIV screening information.
Key points for the Antenatal HIV Screening Programme

The Antenatal HIV Screening Programme is offered to all pregnant women and aims to
reduce the risk of perinatal transmission of HIV.

Antenatal HIV screening has been offered to women in all 20 DHBs since July 2010. Some
individual DHBs started screening prior to this time.

The National Screening Unit (NSU) is responsible for funding and monitoring this screening
programme.

No babies of women screened have been born with HIV since the programme was
implemented.

The data limitations identified in the report mean the National Screening Unit cannot
monitor uptake of the programme comprehensively. The limitations do not impact on the
care or management of women undergoing screening or diagnosed with HIV.

The NSU continues to work with DHBs and laboratories to improve the data quality for this
screening programme.
Key points for January to June 2014

Data from all 20 DHBs was collected and reported on for this period.

At the national level, the average uptake rate of antenatal HIV screening was 87 percent.
Because of a small number of data issues, this figure may be slightly different from the true
uptake rate. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to assume that it is the most accurate figure for the
screening programme to this point.

Across DHBs, screening uptake rates range from 59 percent to 100 percent. Uptake rates for
the Auckland region, Northland, Canterbury, Nelson Marlborough and South Canterbury can
only be estimated due to data issues. In particular, a proportion of the records in these DHBs
did not include a National Health Index (NHI) number, which is a nationally unique
identifier. The NSU therefore does not have sufficient information to assign these records an
accurate DHB of domicile (that is, the DHB area in which the woman lives).

Antenatal HIV screening uptake rates are analysed by requestor type, age group, ethnicity
and deprivation status. While there are some small differences across these factors, they are
generally not large enough to be significant.

At the national aggregate level, there were 11 reactive enzyme immuno-assay (EIA) tests
reported across this reporting period. This result is lower than other reporting periods, and
well within the range of 1 in 1000 which was the initial programme prediction.

There were no HIV positive case identified through screening for this reporting period. This
is in line with the data reported by the AIDS Epidemiology Group.
Antenatal HIV Screening Programme:
Monitoring Report 1 January to 30 June 2014
v
1 Introduction
1.1 Why offer screening for HIV in
pregnancy?
The primary purpose of screening for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in pregnancy is
to reduce the risk of perinatal transmission of HIV. Without diagnosis and treatment during
pregnancy, the risk of transmission is around 25–32 percent. However, with diagnosis and
appropriate treatment that risk is reduced to less than 1 percent (Dickson et al 2002;
Rongkavilit and Asmar 2004; Ziegler and Graves 2004; Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention 2007; National Screening Unit 2008). No cases of perinatal transmission of HIV
have been identified in New Zealand among women who have had appropriate treatment during
pregnancy.
New Zealand has a low prevalence of HIV, and since 2006 the HIV epidemic among
heterosexual people in New Zealand has seen a steady decline (AEG, 2014a). However,
heterosexual transmission still remains the most common means of acquiring HIV in many
parts of the world and specifically in the Asian Pacific region (UNAIDS, 2013). It is national
policy that HIV screening be offered and recommended to all pregnant women, along with the
other blood screening tests, as an integral part of antenatal care. Since July 2010, it has been a
requirement that all pregnant women in New Zealand are offered screening for HIV, alongside
the other tests included within the first antenatal blood screen, when they first present for
antenatal care. Ensuring women make an informed decision about antenatal screening for HIV
is a legal requirement under the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights,
which is central to best practice in maternity care.
1.2 Background to the universal offer of HIV
screening in pregnancy in New Zealand
In 2005, the New Zealand Government directed the National Screening Unit (NSU) of the
Ministry of Health to begin to implement a nationwide Universal Offer Antenatal HIV Screening
Programme. It made this decision because there was evidence that the risk assessment approach
to offering screening for HIV was not working. A 2004 report by the National Health Committee
(National Health Committee 2004), and the 2005 release of the findings of a case by the Health
and Disability Commissioner (HDC 2005), were both strong drivers for change.
Before the national programme was implemented, Waikato District Health Board had made
significant progress towards implementing an antenatal HIV screening programme in its region.
It became the first district health board (DHB) to implement the national programme in March
2006. Between 2007 and 2010 the other DHBs also implemented the Antenatal HIV Screening
Programme.
Antenatal HIV Screening Programme:
Monitoring Report 1 January to 30 June 2014
1
1.3 Programme monitoring and data
collection
This report presents information for the Antenatal HIV Screening Programme between 1
January and 30 June 2014. This report presents data over a six-month timeframe. Previous to
2012, reporting was quarterly but, because a number of women have more than one test
recorded during their pregnancy which creates the potential for over-reporting, six-monthly
reporting has been implemented.
Monitoring and evaluation of screening programmes are integral to good practice. Findings
inform programme and provider performance against national indicators and ongoing policy
development to ensure that services are safe for women and their babies. In 2006, the AIDS
Epidemiology Group (AEG, University of Otago) developed a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
for the programme. AEG has overall responsibility for national surveillance of AIDS and HIV
infection in New Zealand. AEG also began some qualitative research to review the impact of
reactive screening or positive confirmatory results on women and their health care providers.
This research concluded in June 2012 (McAllister et al 2013).
In 2008, AEG began monitoring the Antenatal HIV Screening Programme. From July 2009
routine programme monitoring transferred to the NSU. Since this time the data collection,
transfer and data validation have been reviewed and redesigned. The new process was
implemented from April 2010 onwards, as described in Figure 1. AEG continues to receive
notifications of most HIV positive results direct from laboratories. See Appendix 1 for greater
detail on data collection processes before and after 1 April 2010.
Figure 1: Data collection process from April 2010 to present
2
Antenatal HIV Screening Programme:
Monitoring Report 1 January to 30 June 2014
1.4 Information included in this report
The data in this report relates to all 20 DHBs participating in the Antenatal HIV Screening
Programme from 1 January to 30 June 2014.
Table 1 below identifies whether or not data was received for monitoring purposes from each
DHB and the date of programme implementation for each DHB.
Table 1: Data provided by DHB, 1 January to 30 June 2014
DHB
Month and year started screen
Data provided
Northland
August 2008
Yes
Waitemata
April 2009
Yes
Auckland
April 2009
Yes
Counties Manukau
April 2009
Yes
Waikato
March 2006
Yes
Lakes
September 2008
Yes
Bay of Plenty
August 2008
Yes
Tairawhiti
April 2008
Yes
Taranaki
August 2008
Yes
Hawke’s Bay
July 2008
Yes
Whanganui
March 2010
Yes
MidCentral
May 2009
Yes
Hutt Valley
June 2009
Yes
Capital & Coast
May 2009
Yes
Wairarapa
July 2009
Yes
Nelson Marlborough
December 2009
Yes
West Coast
December 2008
Yes
Canterbury
April 2009
Yes
South Canterbury
July 2009
Yes
Southern
July 2010
Yes
See Appendix 2 for a full list of data fields collected and a further description of each field.
The national laboratory algorithm for antenatal HIV screening involves a two-step process. The
first step is to do an HIV enzyme immuno-assay (EIA) test. The EIA test is low cost, rapid and
very sensitive and specific for HIV (99.9% approximately). The results of an EIA test can be:

non-reactive, which means that the woman is very unlikely to be infected with HIV

low-level reactive, which is usually non-specific cross-reactivity and not related to HIV
infection

high-level reactive, which indicates likely HIV infection.
Women who have a reactive EIA test result (low-level and high-level) are asked to provide a
second blood sample for confirmatory testing. Confirmatory testing is done using a nucleic acid
amplification test (NAAT) in the form of HIV viral load or PCR. This is intended to exclude or
confirm HIV infection as quickly as possible, rather than waiting for a conclusive Western Blot
test result which can take between three weeks and six months.
Antenatal HIV Screening Programme:
Monitoring Report 1 January to 30 June 2014
3
1.5 Screening uptake calculations
The screening uptake calculations are based on the following data fields.
Records included in each six-month period
Records included in this six-month period are based on the ‘Date initial sample received’, which
must be between 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2014.
DHB of domicile
Each record is allocated to a DHB based on the National Health Index (NHI) information on the
woman’s residential address. Where the NHI number is not provided (see Section 1.6 below on
data limitations), then the DHB is shown as ‘not recorded’.
Ethnicity and NZ Deprivation decile
Ethnicity is prioritised based on NHI ethnicity information. All reporting ‘by NZDep decile’ is
based on the NZDep decile as associated with the NHI-based residential address (domicile
code). (Salmond et al 2007). Where the NHI number is missing, these fields are shown as ‘not
reported’.
Uptake rates
To accurately calculate screening uptake, it is necessary to report information for all pregnant
women and to record whether they have a blood test with or without an HIV test in a field
called ‘Timing of AHIV screen’. The possible options are:
1
first set of antenatal bloods with an HIV test
2
first set of antenatal bloods without an HIV test
3
HIV test outside of first antenatal blood screening.
The uptake rate for the purposes of this report is defined as the percentage of antenatal screens
with an HIV component (option 1 or 3), and is calculated as follows:
(n) (Women with HIV test as part of first antenatal bloods + Women with HIV test outside first antenatal bloods)
x 100
(N) Women with antenatal blood screen (with or without HIV component)
In calculating screening uptake for the purposes of monitoring, the NSU does not know whether
the women who did not have an antenatal HIV test were not offered a test or were offered one
but declined it.
4
Antenatal HIV Screening Programme:
Monitoring Report 1 January to 30 June 2014
1.6 Data limitations
If there is missing or inaccurate data for any DHB, this will affect its uptake rates.
The data issues generally relate to the following.

No data or late data may be provided or the records may be incomplete, with the result that
some records may not be included. This issue is much less prevalent than in the early days of
programme implementation and has a limited effect on data quality.

Laboratories may not provide DHBs with an NHI number for women who have antenatal
bloods without an HIV test (that is, when women declined the HIV component of the test).
This creates two main problems for the data.1
– With no NHI number, the records cannot be assigned a DHB of domicile, ethnicity or
decile grouping. Where there is an NHI number, each of these fields is provided by
matching records securely with the national NHI database.
– Without a nationally unique identifier (NHI number), the NSU is unable to identify
whether records are a duplicate. (Around 3–4 percent of women have duplicate records
submitted in each reporting period.) As a result, the number of women screened may be
over-counted.
In this report unique laboratory identifiers were provided for the Auckland region DHBs and for
Northland so that the issue of duplicates could be minimised. However, this approach does not
resolve the issue of missing data on ethnicity, decile or DHB of domicile.
The issue of missing NHI numbers does not affect all DHBs. Table 2 identifies the extent to
which it applies in this report and includes women screened and unscreened for HIV.
Also analysed has been the question of how likely it is that a DHB that is sent the data by the
laboratory is also the DHB of domicile. For most DHBs, and specifically for Canterbury and
Northland, the NSU is confident that the women with missing NHI numbers are likely to be
resident in the region of the DHB that sent in their data.
There is one laboratory covering the three DHBs in the Auckland region. The movement of
women between the DHBs does not allow confidence in reporting by DHB so the combined
uptake rate for these three DHBs is provided in the analysis tables in this report.
The process is that antenatal HIV data is sent from the community laboratory where testing is
performed through to the DHB for those women domiciled in that DHB. The DHB then check
the data and send it on to the Ministry of Health. Data for Waitemata DHB illustrates the impact
of the absence of NHI for those women who have antenatal bloods without an HIV test. If all
records which have no NHI number were excluded from analysis, then the uptake rate would be
close to 100 percent. On the other hand, if all these records were included, the uptake rate would
be only 81 percent. The ‘true’ rate is most likely to be somewhere between these two figures.
Because missing NHIs do not allow for DHB of domicile to be assigned the estimated rates are
calculated based on the data sent in by the DHB and include records with a missing unique
identifier. Using the example of South Canterbury the DHB sent in 458 records of which 269
had an HIV screen. This enables an estimated uptake of 59% to be calculated.
1
If a DHB is provided with NHI numbers by its laboratory and is confident that a large number of screens are not
occurring outside of its region, then this issue is likely to have little effect on its uptake rates.
Antenatal HIV Screening Programme:
Monitoring Report 1 January to 30 June 2014
5
Table 2: Records submitted with missing NHI numbers, 1 January to 30 June 2014
DHB submitting the
records
Number of
records submitted
Number of records with no NHI
number provided by laboratory
Percentage of all submitted
records with no NHI number
Northland
1,361
249
18.3
Waitemata
5,244
988
18.8
Auckland
5,839
1,023
17.5
Counties Manukau
5,552
479
8.6
Waikato
4,158
1
0.0
Lakes
1,081
0
0.0
Bay of Plenty
2,024
0
0.0
Tairawhiti
495
0
0.0
Taranaki
1,085
0
0.0
Hawke’s Bay
1,143
0
0.0
Whanganui
520
1
0.2
MidCentral
1,443
7
0.5
Hutt Valley
1,275
4
0.3
Capital & Coast
3,050
20
0.7
347
3
0.9
1,113
264
23.7
West Coast
265
1
0.4
Canterbury
4,851
847
17.5
458
189
41.3
2,492
30
1.2
43,796
4,106
9.4
Wairarapa
Nelson Marlborough
South Canterbury
Southern
Total
6
Antenatal HIV Screening Programme:
Monitoring Report 1 January to 30 June 2014
2 Screening uptake
This section looks in more detail at screening uptake, breaking down the data into a range of
more specific categories or data fields.
2.1 Antenatal HIV screening uptake by DHB
Table 3 provides detailed information about antenatal HIV screening across DHBs.
The table also covers the timing of antenatal HIV screening, to outline how the uptake rates
were calculated. This analysis is important to provide transparent data and to understand its
strengths and limitations. Please see section 1.6 for a description of how the estimated uptake
rates were calculated for those DHBs showing rates in italics.
Table 3: Screening uptake by DHB, 1 January to 30 June 2014
DHB of domicile
Timing of antenatal HIV screen
Option 1:
First set of
antenatal
bloods with
HIV testing
Option 2:
First set of
antenatal
bloods
without HIV
testing
Option 3:
AHIV testing
outside first
antenatal
blood
screening
Aggregated data
(N)
All women
screened
(Options
1 + 2 + 3)
(n)
Women with
Women with
antenatal
HIV
screening with
screening
HIV (%)
(Options
(Uptake rate)
1 + 3)
Northland
1049
110
15
1174
1064
Waitemata
4582
8
6
4596
4588
Auckland
4375
8
13
4396
4388
Counties Manukau
5244
5
1
5250
5245
Waikato
3983
5
0
3988
3983
99.9
Lakes
1036
3
1
1040
1037
99.7
Bay of Plenty
72*
85*
2010
1
0
2011
2010
100.0
Tairawhiti
494
1
4
499
498
99.8
Taranaki
864
234
17
1115
881
79.0
1158
4
2
1164
1160
99.7
Whanganui
492
88
7
587
499
85.0
MidCentral
1109
234
25
1368
1134
82.9
Hutt Valley
1120
284
19
1423
1139
80.0
Capital & Coast
2392
426
46
2864
2438
85.1
Wairarapa
291
48
4
343
295
86.0
Nelson Marlborough
859
2
0
861
859
76*
West Coast
178
89
7
274
185
67.5
Canterbury
3710
168
30
3908
3740
78*
Hawke’s Bay
South Canterbury
Southern
Not recorded
Total
*
265
0
0
265
265
100.0
2454
3
1
2458
2455
59*
101
4111
0
4212
101
-
37,766
5832
198
43,796
37,964
86.7
Estimated uptake rates refer to section 1.6 page 5.
Antenatal HIV Screening Programme:
Monitoring Report 1 January to 30 June 2014
7
The low uptake in the ‘not recorded’ field is skewed by the data collection limitations and
therefore not reported. The vast majority of women in the ‘not recorded’ category did not have
HIV testing but without an NHI number they could not be allocated to a DHB of domicile. This
does not affect DHBs to which full NHI information was provided (see Table 2 in section 1.6)
and has been taken into account when estimating the uptake rates for seven DHBs in this
report; South Canterbury, Canterbury, Nelson Marlborough, Waitemata, Auckland, Counties
Manukau and Northland. This data is included in the overall uptake rate of 87 percent.
Screening uptake rates ranged from 100 percent to around 59 percent. Six DHBs had rates of
99 percent or more, the remaining DHBs, largely had rates between 68 percent and 86 percent
(see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Screening uptake by DHB, 1 January to 30 June 2014
*
Estimated uptake rates.
2.2 Antenatal HIV screening uptake by
requestor
This subsection identifies the most regular requestors of antenatal HIV screening by uptake and
also by DHB. Table 4 shows general practitioners (GPs) are the group that most commonly
requests antenatal HIV screening, which is a finding consistent with past reports. There is little
variation in uptake between the different types of requestors. The midwives have the highest
uptake, similar to the last reporting period and in this report obstetricians have a slightly lower
rate. ‘Other’ includes requests through family planning clinics, emergency departments, sexual
health clinics and other hospital-based doctors.
8
Antenatal HIV Screening Programme:
Monitoring Report 1 January to 30 June 2014
Table 4: Screening uptake by requestor type, 1 January to 30 June 2014
Requestor
Midwife
GP
Obstetrician
Other
Unknown
Total
n
n
N
11,810
23,430
868
605
1251
37,964
13,052
27,230
1052
688
1774
43,796
% uptake
90.5
86.0
82.5
87.9
70.5
86.7
= number of women who have had antenatal screens with HIV component only.
N = total number of women who have had antenatal screens (with or without HIV
component).
Figure 3 shows this information graphically along with the average percentage for all women.
Figure 3: Screening uptake by requestor type, 1 January to 30 June 2014
Table 5 shows the difference in uptake rates between DHBs, broken down by the different types
of requestors. Uptake rates vary between individual DHBs though numbers in some categories
are quite low. There are also differences within DHBs regarding the types of professionals that
are requesting antenatal HIV screening.
The differences are likely to be most interesting to individual DHBs seeking to understand
uptake rates across requestors.
Antenatal HIV Screening Programme:
Monitoring Report 1 January to 30 June 2014
9
Table 5: Screening uptake by DHB and requestor type, 1 January to 30 June 2014
DHB
Requestor type
Midwife
n
N
Northland
470
510
Waitemata
1457
857
Auckland
Counties Manukau
1248
Waikato
GP
Obstetrician
n
N
560
621
90.2
1458
99.9 2843
2849
860
99.7 3110
3113
1248
%
92.2
100.0
3780
n
N
%
n
N
8
15
53.3
2
99.8
15
16
93.8
99.9
28
30
99.9
1
99.8
Unknown
%
n
N
4
50.0
24
24
100.0 1064
1174
6
6
100.0
267
267
100.0 4588
4596
93.3
7
7
100.0
386
386
100.0 4388
4396
2
50.0
3
3
100.0
213
213
100.0 5245
5250
36
36
100.0
116
87
87
100.0 3983
3988
100.0
n
N
%
72*
85*
1564
249
251
755
756
99.9
10
10
100.0
19
19
100.0
4
4
100.0 1037
1040
99.7
Bay of Plenty
777
777
100.0 1198
1198
100.0
16
17
94.1
16
16
100.0
3
3
100.0 2010
2011
100.0
Tairawhiti
197
197
100.0
299
299
100.0
1
2
50.0
1
1
100.0
0
0
0.0
498
499
99.8
Taranaki
437
538
81.2
314
422
74.4
32
57
56.1
96
96
100.0
2
2
100.0
881
1115
79.0
Hawke’s Bay
445
446
99.8
670
671
99.9
28
28
100.0
3
4
75.0
14
15
93.3 1160
1164
99.7
Whanganui
258
292
88.4
236
290
81.4
1
1
100.0
1
1
100.0
3
3
499
587
85.0
MidCentral
528
614
86.0
598
744
80.4
3
3
100.0
1
2
50.0
4
5
80.0 1134
1368
82.9
Hutt Valley
336
470
71.5
679
783
86.7
80
115
69.6
29
33
87.9
15
22
68.2 1139
1423
80.0
Capital & Coast
520
677
76.8 1724
1940
88.9
133
163
81.6
13
19
68.4
48
65
73.8 2438
2864
85.1
83
102
81.4
207
235
88.1
3
3
100.0
2
2
100.0
0
1
0.0
295
343
86.0
Nelson Marlborough
116
%
1563
99.2
2185
%
Other
Lakes
Wairarapa
99.9 2181
3784
Total
100.0
99.9
325
326
99.7
460
460
100.0
25
25
100.0
46
46
100.0
3
4
75.0
859
861
76*
West Coast
8
8
100.0
10
12
83.3
3
3
100.0
1
1
100.0
163
250
65.2
185
274
67.5
Canterbury
1062
1138
93.3 2299
63.6 3740
41
41
914
916
35
619
South Canterbury
Southern
Not recorded
Total
11,810 13,052
2366
97.2
288
301
95.7
84
92
91.3
7
11
3908
78*
162
162
100.0
25
25
100.0
35
35
100.0
2
2
100.0
265
265
59*
99.8 1291
1292
99.9
125
125
100.0
122
122
100.0
3
3
100.0 2455
2458
99.9
3048
1.8
7
75
9.3
2
63
3.2
3
407
86.0
868
1,052
82.5
605
688
87.9 1,251
1,774
100.0
5.7
54
90.5 23,430 27,230
n = number of women who have had antenatal screens with HIV component only.
N = total number of women who have had antenatal screens (with or without HIV component).
*
10
Estimated uptake rates refer to section 1.6 page 5.
Antenatal HIV Screening Programme:
Monitoring Report 1 January to 30 June 2014
0.7
101
70.5 37,964
4212
43,796
86.7
2.3 Antenatal HIV screening uptake by age
group
Antenatal HIV screening is available to all pregnant women. The results below explore the
variation in uptake rates by age. At the national level, Table 6 and Figure 4 indicate that there is
little difference in antenatal HIV screening uptake rate by age group except for a small drop off
in the over 40 year age group. Table 7 breaks down this data by DHB. While rates appear higher
in under 15 year olds the numbers are quite small.
Table 6: Screening uptake by age group, 1 January to 30 June 2014
Age group
n
N
Under 15 years
54
60
90.0
15–19 years
2765
3142
88.0
20–24 years
7457
8464
88.1
25–29 years
10,084
11,605
86.9
30–39 years
15,888
18,453
86.1
1710
2065
82.8
6
7
37,964
43,796
40+ years
Not recorded
Total
n
% uptake
86.7
= number of women who have had antenatal screens with HIV component only.
N = total number of women who have had antenatal screens (with or without HIV
component).
Figure 4: Screening uptake by age group, 1 January to 30 June 2014
Antenatal HIV Screening Programme:
Monitoring Report 1 January to 30 June 2014
11
Table 7: Screening uptake by DHB and age group, 1 January to 30 June 2014
DHB
Age group (years)
<15
n
N
15–19
%
n
N
20–24
25–29
%
n
N
%
n
N
30–39
%
All ages (excluding
missing age)
40+
n
N
%
n
N
347
384
90.4
43
%
n**
N**
87.8 1064
1174
Northland
7
7 100.0
103
117
88.0
293
322
91.0
271
295
Waitemata
3
3 100.0
216
216
100.0
642
644
99.7 1170
1173
99.7 2308
2311
99.9
248
248 100.0 4587
4595
Auckland
2
2 100.0
192
192
100.0
616
617
99.8 1107
1109
99.8 2265
2269
99.8
205
206
99.5 4387
4395
100.0 1188
1191
99.7 1464
1465
99.9 1905
1906
99.9
207
207 100.0 5245
5250
99.8 1122
1122
100.0 1405
1407
99.9
155
155 100.0 3983
3988
Counties Manukau
91.9
49
%
72*
85*
10
10 100.0
471
471
Waikato
5
5 100.0
351
352
99.7
945
947
Lakes
2
2 100.0
103
103
100.0
274
275
99.6
288
289
99.7
336
337
99.7
34
34 100.0 1037
1040
99.7
Bay of Plenty
2
2 100.0
196
196
100.0
435
435
100.0
546
546
100.0
747
748
99.9
84
84 100.0 2010
2011
100.0
Tairawhiti
3
3 100.0
54
54
100.0
111
112
99.1
139
139
100.0
173
173
100.0
18
18 100.0
498
499
99.8
Taranaki
3
3 100.0
74
87
85.1
198
239
82.8
275
334
82.3
301
410
73.4
30
42
71.4
881
1115
79.0
Hawke’s Bay
1
1 100.0
118
118
100.0
265
266
99.6
289
289
100.0
441
443
99.5
46
47
97.9 1160
1164
99.7
Whanganui
2
3
66.7
59
62
95.2
146
164
89.0
129
161
80.1
143
175
81.7
20
22
90.9
499
587
85.0
MidCentral
1
1 100.0
107
121
88.4
266
318
83.6
317
396
80.1
407
481
84.6
35
50
70.0 1133
1367
82.9
Hutt Valley
0
1
0.0
98
115
85.2
243
294
82.7
278
347
80.1
463
590
78.5
57
76
75.0 1139
1423
80.0
Capital & Coast
4
5
80.0
126
143
88.1
371
440
84.3
598
694
86.2 1207
1422
84.9
132
160
82.5 2438
2864
85.1
Wairarapa
1
1 100.0
36
40
90.0
75
86
87.2
78
91
85.7
92
109
84.4
13
16
81.3
295
343
86.0
Nelson Marlborough
1
1 100.0
70
70
100.0
161
162
99.4
225
225
100.0
363
363
100.0
38
39
97.4
858
860
76*
West Coast
2
2 100.0
15
23
65.2
42
62
67.7
52
73
71.2
64
101
63.4
10
13
76.9
185
274
67.5
Canterbury
5
6
83.3
198
215
92.1
647
677
95.6
976
1022
95.5 1715
207
95.7 3739
South Canterbury
0
0
0.0
17
17
100.0
49
49
100.0
78
78
Southern
0
0
0.0
152
152
100.0
470
472
99.6
658
658
Not recorded
0
2
0.0
9
278
3.2
20
692
2.9
24
1,099
54
60
Total
90.0 2,765 3,142
88.0 7,457 8,464
88.1 10,084 11,605
1780
96.3
198
109
109
100.0
12
100.0 1055
1056
99.9
119
1,879
2.2
6
100.0
2.2
42
86.9 15,888 18,453
99.9
3907
78*
265
265
59*
119 100.0 2454
2457
99.9
261
4211
12 100.0
86.1 1,710 2,065
2.3
101
82.8 37,958 43,789
86.7
n =
number of women who have had antenatal screens with HIV component only.
N = total number of women who have had antenatal screens (with or without HIV component).
*
12
Estimated uptake rate refer to section 1.6 page 5. ** In order to show all age groups the table excludes data for seven women (six of whom had AHIV testing) who did not
have a valid date of birth; this does not affect the overall percentages.
Antenatal HIV Screening Programme:
Monitoring Report 1 January to 30 June 2014
2.4 Antenatal HIV screening uptake by
ethnicity
Ethnicity data in this report is grouped according to a prioritised system, which is commonly
applied across the New Zealand health sector. Prioritisation involves allocating each person to a
single ethnic group, based on the ethnicities that person has identified, in the prioritised order
of Māori, Pacific, Asian and Other ethnicity (and Not stated / Unknown). For example, if
someone identifies as being New Zealand European and Māori, under the prioritised ethnicity
method, they are classified as Māori for the purpose of the analysis. Under this method, the
group Other ethnicity effectively refers to non-Māori, non-Pacific, non-Asian people.
At a national level, Table 8 and Figure 5 show a slightly higher uptake rate in this reporting
period for Pacific and Asian women. While the difference is not large, this trend is consistent
with previous reports.
Table 8: Screening uptake by ethnicity, 1 January to 30 June 2014
Ethnicity
n
N
%
Māori
7420
7806
95.1
Pacific
3700
3793
97.5
Asian
6171
6347
97.2
19,884
20,931
95.0
789
4919
37,964
43,796
Other ethnicity
Not recorded
Total
n
86.7
= number of women who have had antenatal screens with HIV component only.
N = total number of women who have had antenatal screens (with or without HIV
component).
Figure 5: Screening uptake by ethnicity, 1 January to 30 June 2014
As Table 9 shows, rates across DHBs do not vary greatly between ethnic groups though rates do
vary between DHBs as for the data broken down by requestor type and age group (Tables 5
and 7).
Antenatal HIV Screening Programme:
Monitoring Report 1 January to 30 June 2014
13
Table 9: Screening uptake by DHB and ethnicity, 1 January to 30 June 2014
DHB
Ethnicity
Māori
N
%
n
N
%
563
88.1
21
22
95.5
44
49
89.8
500
502
99.6
423
424
99.8 1245
380
381
99.7
686
688
Counties Manukau
1078
1080
99.8 1581
1581
Waikato
Auckland
496
Other ethnicity
n
Waitemata
N
Asian
%
Northland
n
Pacific
All ethnicities
n
N
492
1246
99.7 1434
100.0 1233
Not recorded
%
n
N
%
n
N
%
528
93.2
11
12
91.7 1064
1174
99.9 2339
2343
99.8
81
81
100.0 4588
4596
1435
99.9 1796
1799
99.8
92
93
98.9 4388
4396
1234
99.9 1279
1281
99.8
74
74
100.0 5245
5250
99.7 2142
2144
99.9
163
163
100.0 3983
3988
99.9
464
466
99.6
12
12
100.0 1037
1040
99.7
100.0 1106
1107
99.9
33
33
100.0 2010
2011
100.0
72*
85*
1141
1143
99.8
155
155
100.0
382
383
Lakes
463
464
99.8
23
23
100.0
75
75
Bay of Plenty
674
674
100.0
46
46
100.0
151
151
Tairawhiti
287
288
99.7
17
17
100.0
12
12
100.0
179
179
100.0
3
3
100.0
498
499
99.8
Taranaki
179
231
77.5
12
12
100.0
60
74
81.1
611
772
79.1
19
26
73.1
881
1115
79.0
Hawke’s Bay
383
384
99.7
56
56
100.0
65
65
100.0
646
649
99.5
10
10
100.0 1160
1164
99.7
Whanganui
194
226
85.8
17
22
77.3
20
22
90.9
265
314
84.4
3
3
499
587
85.0
MidCentral
256
315
81.3
52
61
85.2
96
113
85.0
684
827
82.7
46
52
88.5 1134
1368
82.9
Hutt Valley
276
349
79.1
106
125
84.8
152
194
78.4
587
735
79.9
18
20
90.0 1139
1423
80.0
Capital & Coast
304
348
87.4
235
279
84.2
440
504
87.3 1410
1678
84.0
49
55
89.1 2438
2864
85.1
70
83
84.3
3
5
60.0
13
13
100.0
201
234
85.9
8
8
100.0
295
343
86.0
Wairarapa
Nelson Marlborough
100.0
100.0
110
111
99.1
22
22
100.0
53
53
100.0
666
667
99.9
8
8
100.0
859
861
76*
West Coast
25
38
65.8
3
5
60.0
11
14
78.6
146
217
67.3
0
0
0.0
185
274
67.5
Canterbury
312
334
93.4
158
165
95.8
487
512
95.1 2713
2826
96.0
70
71
98.6 3740
3908
78*
23
23
100.0
3
3
100.0
14
14
219
219
100.0
6
6
265
265
59*
247
247
100.0
77
77
100.0
173
173
100.0 1878
1881
99.8
80
80
100.0 2455
2458
99.9
22
22
100.0
4
5
80.0
11
11
65
93.8
3
4,109
7,420
7,806
95.1 3,700
3,793
97.5 6,171
6,347
95.0
789
4,919
South Canterbury
Southern
Not recorded
Total
n
100.0
61
97.2 19,884 20,931
100.0
0.1
101
16.0 37,964
4212
43,796
= number of women who have had antenatal screens with HIV component only.
N = number of women who have had antenatal screens (with or without HIV component).
14
100.0
Antenatal HIV Screening Programme:
Monitoring Report 1 January to 30 June 2014
* Estimated uptake rates refer to section 1.6 page 5.
86.7
2.5 Antenatal HIV screening uptake by
NZDep
The NZDep2006 Index of Deprivation combines nine variables from the 2006 census which
reflect eight dimensions of socioeconomic deprivation. It comprises a 10-category ordinal scale
that ranges from 1 (assigned to the 10 percent of areas with the least deprived NZDep2006
scores) to 10 (assigned to the 10 percent of areas with the most deprived NZDep2006 scores).
The NZDep2006 deprivation scores apply to areas rather than to individual people (Salmond
et al 2007).
At a national level, there is little difference in uptake rates by decile grouping, as shown in
Table 10 and Figure 6. The reason why some women do not have a decile rating is almost
always because their records were missing an NHI number; in almost all of these cases, the
women did not have an antenatal HIV test with their first antenatal bloods and hence the uptake
rate is low. Table 11 shows the data by DHB.
Table 10: Screening uptake by NZDep2006 decile, 1 January to 30 June 2014
Decile
n
N
% uptake
1–2
5314
5592
95.0
3–4
5668
5882
96.4
5–6
7117
7442
95.6
7–8
8825
9261
95.3
10,929
11,397
95.9
111
4222
37,964
43,796
9–10
Not recorded
Total
n
86.7
= number of women who have had antenatal screens with HIV component only.
N = total number of women who have had antenatal screens (with or without HIV component).
Figure 6: Screening uptake by NZDep2006 decile, 1 January to 30 June 2014
As with the previous categories broken down by DHB, the major variation is across DHBs rather
than across decile groups, and for many DHBs the actual numbers involved are quite small.
Antenatal HIV Screening Programme:
Monitoring Report 1 January to 30 June 2014
15
Table 11: Screening uptake by DHB and NZDep2006 decile, 1 January to 30 June 2014
DHB
Decile
1–2
n
N
3–4
%
n
N
All deciles
5–6
7–8
9–10
Unknown
%
n
N
%
n
N
%
n
N
%
n
N
%
n
N
97.8
186
199
93.5
313
339
92.3
432
499
86.6
0
0
0.0
1064
1174
1035
99.9 1383 1387
99.7
342
343
99.7
1
1 100.0
4588
4596
Northland
45
47
95.7
88
Waitemata
884
886
99.8
944
944 100.0 1034
Auckland
475
475 100.0
751
752
99.9
957
959
99.8
868
871
99.7 1335
1337
99.9
2
2 100.0
4388
4396
Counties Manukau
645
645 100.0
351
352
99.7
676
676 100.0
491
491 100.0 3082
3086
99.9
0
0
0.0
5245
5250
Waikato
453
454
371
371 100.0
754
754 100.0 1184 1187
1222
99.9
0
0
0.0
3983
3988
Lakes
88 100.0
99.8
90
120
120 100.0
88
Bay of Plenty
48
48 100.0
364
Tairawhiti
25
25 100.0
44
Taranaki
73
92
79.3
77
100
77.0
227
299
75.9
377
459
114 100.0
184
185
99.5
137
138
99.3
Hawke’s Bay
Whanganui
114
99.7 1221
%
72*
85*
99.9
177
178
99.4
185
185 100.0
467
469
99.6
0
0
0.0
1037
1040
99.7
99.7
472
472 100.0
582
582 100.0
544
544
100.0
0
0
0.0
2010
2011
100.0
44 100.0
62
62 100.0
19
19 100.0
348
349
99.7
0
0
0.0
498
499
99.8
82.1
126
164
76.8
1
1 100.0
881
1115
79.0
297
297 100.0
428
430
99.5
0
0
0.0
1160
1164
99.7
365
34
40
85.0
54
61
88.5
47
61
77.0
156
185
84.3
208
240
86.7
0
0
0.0
499
587
85.0
MidCentral
92
106
86.8
156
180
86.7
257
299
86.0
291
355
82.0
338
428
79.0
0
0
0.0
1134
1368
82.9
Hutt Valley
202
265
76.2
67
85
78.8
174
217
80.2
411
522
78.7
285
334
85.3
0
0
0.0
1139
1423
80.0
Capital & Coast
709
833
85.1
406
487
83.4
572
666
85.9
182
200
91.0
569
678
83.9
0
0
0.0
2438
2864
85.1
Wairarapa
29
35
82.9
43
49
87.8
28
33
84.8
144
163
88.3
50
62
80.6
1
1 100.0
295
343
86.0
Nelson Marlborough
70
70 100.0
248
250
99.2
184
184 100.0
287
287 100.0
70
70
100.0
0
0
0.0
859
861
76*
West Coast
15
22
68.2
15
35
42.9
36
50
72.0
72.7
0
0
0.0
185
274
67.5
Canterbury
765
799
793
96.7
601
624
96.3
64 100.0
66
66 100.0
95
470 100.0
556
557
0
0
South Canterbury
Southern
Not recorded
Total
95.7
767
27
27 100.0
64
489
489 100.0
586
587
99.8
470
0
0
0.0
0
0
95.0 5668
5882
96.4 7117
7442
0
0
5314
5592
0.0
0.0
55
79
69.6
64
88
949 1001
94.8
658
691
95.2
0
0
0.0
3740
3908
78*
95 100.0
13
13
100.0
0
0
0.0
265
265
59*
99.8
349
350
99.7
5
5 100.0
2455
2458
99.9
0.0
0
0
101
4212
-
95.6 8825 9261
n = number of women who have had antenatal screens with HIV component only.
N = total number of women who have had antenatal screens (with or without HIV component).
*
16
Estimated uptake rates refer to section 1.6 page 5.
Antenatal HIV Screening Programme:
Monitoring Report 1 January to 30 June 2014
95.3 10,929 11,397
0.0 101 4212
95.9 111 4222
2.4
2.6 37,964 43,796
86.7
3 Initial reactive and
confirmed positive results
This section reports aggregate information on reactive EIA tests and confirmed HIV cases,
rather than data at DHB level, due to the small number of women involved. Aggregate reporting
ensures this information is not identifiable.
Information is reported on reactive EIA screening tests and on confirmed HIV positive cases,
identified through both the Antenatal HIV Screening Programme and through routine AEG
surveillance. As indicated in Table 12, there were no confirmed HIV positive cases identified
through screening and this matches the number identified through AEG surveillance.
Table 12:
Initial reactive screening test results and confirmed HIV positive results,
1 January to 30 June 2014
Number of reactive EIA
screening tests
Total
11
Number of confirmed HIV positive cases
Identified through
screening
Identified in the antenatal period
through AEG surveillance
0
0
3.1 Reactive EIA screening tests results
If the initial EIA screening test result is reactive, then the screening programme algorithm
requires that a second sample is collected for confirmatory testing. A reactive result would be a
cause for concern to the woman, and it is important to monitor these numbers to make sure they
remain low.
For this six-month period there were 11 reactive test results from ten DHBs. This total is lower
than recent reports but is consistent with screening earlier periods and is well below initial
programme predictions that 1 in 1000 women, or 0.1 percent, would have a reactive result.
3.2 Confirmed HIV positive cases
There were no HIV positive cases identified in this six-month period. This is the same as the
information found though quarterly reporting from the AIDS Epidemiology Group (AEG
2014b).
Antenatal HIV Screening Programme:
Monitoring Report 1 January to 30 June 2014
17
References
AEG, 2014a. AIDs in NZ, issue 73, June 2014. University of Otago.
AEG. 2014b. One hundred and two Quarterly Report of the AIDS Epidemiology Group (AEG) to the
Ministry of Health. August 2014. University of Otago.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2007. Mother to child (perinatal) transmission and
prevention. CDC HIV/AIDS Fact Sheet October: 1–5.
Dickson N, Paul C, Wilkinson L, et al. 2002. Estimates of HIV prevalence among pregnant women in
New Zealand. New Zealand Public Health Report 9(3): 17–24.
Health and Disability Commissioner. 2005. A Report by the Health and Disability Commissioner
(Case 04HDC14171).
McAllister S, Lovell S, Dickson N. 2013. The impact of repeat testing in the New Zealand antenatal
HIV screening programme: a qualitative study. Journal of Medical Screening 20(1): 1–6.
National Health Committee. 2004. HIV Screening in Pregnancy: A Report to the New Zealand
Minister of Health. Wellington: Ministry of Health.
National Screening Unit. 2008. Guidelines for Maternity Providers offering antenatal HIV
screening in New Zealand: The New Zealand Universal Offer Antenatal Human Immunodeficiency
Virus (HIV). Wellington: Ministry of Health.
Rongkavilit C, Asmar BI. 2004. Advances in prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission. Indian
Journal of Paediatrics 1(71): 69–79.
Salmond C, Crampton P, Atkinson J. 2007. NZDep2006 Index of Deprivation. Wellington:
Department of Public Health, University of Otago.
UNAIDS, 2013. GAP report 2013. UNAIDs, Geneva.
Ziegler JB, Graves N. 2004. The time to recommend antenatal HIV screening for all pregnant
women has arrived. Medical Journal Australia 181(3): 124–5.
18
Antenatal HIV Screening Programme:
Monitoring Report 1 January to 30 June 2014
Appendix 1: History of data
collection and reporting
processes
Initial data process from 20 March 2006 to 30 June 2008
Up until the end of quarter 2 of 2008, Waikato DHB extracted data from its laboratory system,
which included name and NHI number. This data was sent to the New Zealand Health
Information Service (NZHIS) to validate it and link the NHI number to ethnicity, domicile code
and NZDep01 decile. Due to difficulties and delays reported by NZHIS in linking the NHI data,
this reporting method was abandoned as new DHBs started to enrol in the programme. Waikato
DHB then converted to an intermediate system (outlined below) and, as new DHBs came on
board, they used that intermediate system too.
Intermediate data process from 1 July 2008 to 31 March 2010
In the intermediate system, antenatal screening data to be collected by the DHBs included Date
of Birth, Screen Requestor Type, DHB Code, Screen Type, Screen Result, Service Date (Date
sample received), Ethnicity Code, Domicile Code, and – where required – Confirmatory Testing
Date, Confirmatory Testing Result, and Comments. This data collection did not personally
identify participants. Using email, files were made available to the AIDS Epidemiology Group
(AEG) for processing and reporting.
Current data process from 1 April 2010
Currently, using a secure file transfer process (FTP), data is sent quarterly from DHBs to
National Collections of the Ministry of Health. The data is pre-validated, amalgamated into a
single file, and (based on NHI information) enriched with gender, ethnicity and domicile code.
The data is then de-identified by National Collections, and sent using a secure FTP to the NSU.
The NSU runs further checks. Based on this quantitative information, the NSU’s Monitoring and
Evaluation team, in collaboration with the Antenatal and Newborn Screening team, produces a
draft monitoring report. The Programme’s Advisory Group then reviews the draft report and
makes recommendations on areas for the team to review. DHBs’ feedback is sought before the
report is finalised. The final monitoring reports are published. No information is or will be
published that could potentially identify individuals.
The data quality process resulted in a number of quality improvements. These improvements
were made to ensure that:

the data set is as complete as possible

the data set includes one record per woman only

the data set contains records only for the reporting period

records include all data deemed essential for reporting.
All demographic data is retrieved from National Health Index Register.
Antenatal HIV Screening Programme:
Monitoring Report 1 January to 30 June 2014
19
Appendix 2: Selected data
fields and descriptions
The table below shows the key spreadsheet data requested from DHBs and used to calculate the
information in this report.
Field
Description
DHB code
Your regional DHB code
NHI number
NHI number of the participant (must be taken from the laboratory screening form)
Date of birth (DoB)
Date of birth of the participant (must be taken from the laboratory screening form)
Screen requestor
type
Options are:
1 = Midwife
2 = GP
3 = Obstetrician
4 = Other
5 = Unknown
Date initial sample
collected
Date the initial blood sample was collected (taken)
Screen result
Repeatedly reactive EIA is reported as reactive EIA; result reported as non-reactive EIA
otherwise. No Western Blot results are to be included in this column. If the screened person
has had HIV testing, the options are:
1 = Non-reactive EIA
2 = Reactive EIA
Timing of (initial)
AHIV screen
When an antenatal HIV screening test was requested, options are:
1 = First set of antenatal bloods with HIV testing
2 = First set of antenatal bloods without HIV testing
3 = AHIV testing outside first antenatal blood screening.
Option 1: An antenatal HIV test result is received with other first antenatal blood results.
This includes results of AHIV tests when taken in conjunction with the first antenatal screen:
This means that the woman had: Group and Antibodies, rubella, RPR/VDRL, Hep B, FBC,
AHIV (unless she has declined any one of the group of tests other than HIV).
Option 2: No antenatal HIV test result is received but other antenatal blood results are
received. This means she had the first antenatal screen but not the AHIV. The woman had:
Group and Antibodies, rubella, RPR/VDRL, Hep B, FBC.
Option 3: Antenatal HIV result is received but no other antenatal blood results are received
– this test has been done during pregnancy (AHIV) and it was not done with the first
antenatal bloods. This includes results of AHIV tests which were performed without the first
antenatal blood screen the woman may have had: AHIV alone or she may have had: AHIV
along with a subsequent (28- or 36-week) antenatal screen. The subsequent screen
includes only Group and Antibodies and FBC and is sometimes carried out with other tests
such as the polycose screen. (If the antenatal screen includes the serology (rubella,
RPR/VDRL, Hep B), it is the first antenatal screen and will fit with either option 1 or 2.)
Date confirmed
sample received
Note that confirmatory testing within the Antenatal HIV Screening Programme only pertains
to NAAT/ PCR-RNA results. No Western Blot results are to be included in this column. If the
screened person has had confirmatory HIV testing then please enter here the date the
confirmatory blood sample has been received for confirmatory testing.
Confirmatory test
result
Note that confirmatory testing within the Antenatal HIV Screening Programme only pertains
to NAAT/ PCR-RNA results. No Western Blot results are to be included in this column. The
options are:
1 = Negative
2 = Positive
20
Antenatal HIV Screening Programme:
Monitoring Report 1 January to 30 June 2014
Antenatal HIV Screening Programme:
Monitoring Report 1 January to 30 June 2014
21