Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17354158›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2007

Concepts of risk among young Swedes tested negative for HIV in primary care.

Monica Christianson, Ann Lalos, Eva E Johansson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Monica ChristiansonDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine/Family Medicine, Umeå University Hospital, Umeå, Sweden. monica.christianson@fammed.umu.se
Ann Lalos
Eva E Johansson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore why young adults test for HIV, how they construct the HIV risk, and what implications testing has for them.

designSix tape-recorded focus-group interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed according to a grounded theory approach. SUBJECTS AND

settingWomen and men between 18 and 24 years of age were recruited from a youth clinic in northern Sweden in 2004-05 after being tested and found to be HIV negative.

resultsA core category--reconsidering risk and four categories--HIV: a distant threat; the risk zone; responsibility: a gendered issue; a green card-- emerged. HIV was described as being far away. Stereotypical images of risk actors emerged but were perceived to be clichés. "Ordinary" people including themselves were also considered at risk. Many had event-driven reasons for testing for HIV, multiple partners being one. One closer risk zone was "the bar"; a dating milieu that often was expected to include "one-night stands" for both women and men. Responsibility for testing was a gendered issue: it was "natural" for women, while men rather "escaped from responsibility". A resistance towards testing was revealed among young men. Receiving a negative HIV test result was "a green card", confirming healthiness and providing relief. Most informants felt "clean" and discussed how to restart with renewed ambitions.

conclusionsAs participating in focus-group interviews was apparently an "eye-opener" for many, a counselling conversation reconsidering risk following an HIV test might be a good idea. Liberal HIV testing among young men and women could evoke insights and maturation and start a process of reflections concerning their sexual risk-taking behaviour.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsHIV SeronegativityRisk-TakingUnsafe SexAdultAttitude to HealthCounselingFamily PracticeFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInterviews as TopicMale

Identifiers

PMID17354158
PMCPMC3389452

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.