ArticleSexually transmitted infections2003
Use of a leaflet to replace verbal pretest discussion for HIV: effects and acceptability.
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mass media interventions for promoting HIV testing.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2005Pooled it
- The utilization of testing and counseling for HIV: a review of the social and behavioral evidence.American journal of public health · 2007Review
- Racial/ethnic attitudes towards HIV testing in the primary care setting.Journal of the National Medical Association · 2005Article
- Sex, sun, sea, and STIs: sexually transmitted infections acquired on holiday.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the effect of using a leaflet to replace formal verbal pretest discussion and assess its acceptability to patients. SETTING AND
methodsA leaflet was developed which gave information on all routine tests undertaken at a genitourinary medicine clinic. Information normally given during verbal pretest discussion for HIV was included. The leaflet was given to all new attenders at routine STI clinics. The proportion of patients accepting tests in the 6 weeks before and 4 weeks after the introduction of the leaflet was elicited by case note review. The acceptability of the leaflet was determined by means of a questionnaire given to patients.
resultsThe use of the leaflet increased the number of patients offered an HIV test from 654 of 1004 (65%) patients to 371 of 397 (94%), p<0.001. It also increased the number tested from 325 (32%) of 1004 patients to 210 of 397 (53%, p<0.001). Men were more likely to be offered an HIV test than women at baseline (342 of 500 men, 68%, v 312 of 504 women, 62%, p=0.036) but after the intervention there was no longer a difference (men 217, 93%, female 154, 94%). The number of men accepting a test increased more than the number of women (139 of 233 men, 60%, 71 of 164 women, 43%, p <0.005). The 79 questionnaires suitable for analysis showed patient views on the leaflet were mainly favourable: easy to understand 73 (92%), clear 70 (89%), absence of difficult words 73 (91%), and right balance of information 68 (86%).
conclusionsThe routine use of a leaflet to replace verbal pretest discussion (PTD) increased the proportion of patients undergoing testing. Part of the increased testing was because physicians were more likely to offer the test, possibly because the time constraints of pretest discussion were removed. This appears to be an acceptable and effective way of increasing HIV testing in GUM clinics but further work is needed to elicit information on non-responders to the questionnaire.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.