analysis
In this analysis, the researcher intends to draw attention on the two qualitative studies as part of the evidence-based process to give weight on the study topic; ‘Clinical Tracking System for Primary Care settings in Improving HIV Screening among Rural Communities of Northern Virginia.’The qualitative study by Wekesa and Coast (2013) on people living with HIV postdiagnosis, the experience of Nairobi Slums, sought to hear the experiences from the heterosexual men and women living with HIV postdiagnosis and further discuss the experiences based on their identity and sexuality.
From the study 41, men and women of the ages 18 and above, participated in an interview. From their experiences, the study concluded that people living with HIV/AIDS had to re-work over their self-identity following a diagnosis of HIV. Drawn from the shared experiences from the study, people living in the informal settlement, especially in developing countries are less supported by the healthcare system in their attempt to cope with stigma associated with the diagnosis. The study found the need for healthcare professionals to supports the right of people living with HIV/AIDS through health education for them to become sexually active and attain their fertility goal while minimizing the risk of HIV transmission.
Another study by Kiplagat and Huschke (2013) tried to analyze the experiences of older adults living with HIV/AIDS on HIV testing and counselling. The study was conducted following the need to engage HIV patients with care as a crucial part to encourage more people to go for diagnosis and comprehensive HIV screening. The purpose of the study was to encourage more people to come out and access the HIV testing services to meet the UNAIDS goal 90-90-90. The study was also used to draw the line between HIV testing and experiences from the older adults living with HIV/AIDS in Western Kenya and how age-factors shaped their level of interaction on the treatment they received during HIV screening process.
Basing these two studies, with the researcher’s PICOT question the studies stand to be relevant since such shared experiences would help the researcher to identify the reasons why many people even in Northern Virginia, where the researcher will be carried out do not attend HIV screenings in their primary care settings and there afterwards ascertain the model to reach out more people for screening.
The interventions of the two studies were based primarily on the HIV positive patients and were carried out within the primary care settings. The researcher intends to carry out the study based on primary care settings where the interventions would also involve the patient experiences directly, including their level of attitude towards screening. The comparisons group based on the previous studies and the intended study will be drawn from those who have gone testing compared to those who did not attend the healthcare HIV related services within the clinical health setting.
In this view, therefore, the researcher seeks to find such experiences and evaluate the level of preparedness for who many people attend HIV testing through a clinical-based system.
On the methods of study, Wekesa and Coast (2013) applied qualitative study methods by using in-depth interviews and use of theoretical informed and biographic disruption theory. The interviews were conducted from HIV adult’s patients who had already gone through HIV post-diagnosis. The study involved 41HIV, heterosexual men and women of over 18 years.
On the other hand, a study by Kiplagat and Huschke (2013) applied qualitative study methods in two clinical settings; one from rural areas and the other one from urban. All the 57 sampled HIV positive adults were interviewed. The study applied audio recording in recording the audio information.
Therefore, the two studies applied interviews as part of the data collection instruments. Interviews facilitate essay correction of information since the information comes directly from the participants. The interview method of data collection also facilitates mutual understanding and provides the researcher with all time to select the best participants.
However, interviews have some limitations; also, the information may be bias where the participants can decide to give false ion formation. During the interviewing process, the researcher may lack attention, thus leading to disappointments in terms of gathering the relevant data.
Based on the findings of the study, Kiplagat and Huschke (2013) on the experiences drawn from old persons regarding HIV screening, their experiences depended much on where they tested. Some tested at the hospital while others visited the community setting. In their experiences, all the participants expressed their much concerns with ageist discrimination, mostly when seeking HIV care testing services within clinical healthcare settings. ,
The participants termed testing and counselling sessions was short and hurried within the clinical health settings, and the tests were done in a short time without giving the patient enough time to confirm some issues. However, participants who sought their services within home-based care had positive experiences of counselling and support.
The study by Wekesa and Coast (2013) people living with HIV had divergent views on HIV screening, Post diagnosis had numerous phases which facilitated and identity repair and making other people feel like going for screening. The study found that people who effectively were able to incorporate their identity with HIV were able to pursue safer sexual life, and this encouraged many people to go for screening.
With such experiences from the two articles, the researcher is anticipating the results of these two studies will act as a baseline for this study. The outcomes of the two studies will be significant, given that the researcher will use these findings to compare and contrast the finding and that of the researcher. Also, the two studies will be important in forming the theoretical basis of the study.