ArticleArchives of disease in childhood2007
Acceptability of perinatal rapid point-of-care HIV testing in an area of low HIV prevalence in the UK.
Article in Archives of disease in childhood, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Women's willingness to be tested for human immunodeficiency virus during pregnancy: A review.World journal of virology · 2015Review
- Feasibility and acceptability of point of care HIV testing in community outreach and GUM drop-in services in the North West of England: a programmatic evaluation.BMC public health · 2011Article
- Update on successes and challenges regarding mother-to-child transmission of HIV.Current opinion in pediatrics · 2009Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the uptake of current antenatal HIV testing, the prevalence of risk factors for HIV in pregnant women and the acceptability of the rapid point-of-care HIV test (RPOCT) among pregnant women and their midwives.
designA retrospective review of 717 notes to determine current HIV screening practices and a cross-sectional survey using a self-completed questionnaire for pregnant women and midwives.
settingThe antenatal clinic (ANC) and postnatal wards (PNW) at a university teaching hospital in the West Midlands.
participants486 women attending the ANC or admitted to the PNW during a fortnight in May-June 2006. 72 midwives on the delivery ward completed a second questionnaire.
resultsThe questionnaire showed that 90.4% of those offered the standard HIV test accepted it, with 7.2% having at least one risk factor for HIV. Over half of the decliners perceived themselves as not at risk. 85.2% would accept the rapid test, including 35.6% of the decliners. 92.8% of midwives agreed/strongly agreed the RPOCT has a role on the delivery ward and 97.2% would be happy to offer the test with appropriate training and guidance.
conclusionsMidwives deem the RPOCT to be appropriate for a variety of perinatal settings. It is also acceptable to a clinically significant proportion of those who decline the standard test (21 of 59) and therefore has the potential to increase screening and detection rates. Hence, by allowing early diagnosis and the initiation of antenatal interventions, it could reduce the rate of mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) in the UK.
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.