ReviewAnnals of internal medicine2009
Consistency of state statutes with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention HIV testing recommendations for health care settings.
Review in Annals of internal medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 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
33 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can computer-based feedback improve emergency department patient uptake of rapid HIV screening?Annals of emergency medicine · 2011Trial
- Projected survival gains from revising state laws requiring written opt-in consent for HIV testing.Journal of general internal medicine · 2011Trial
- Innovation and implementation determinants of HIV testing and linkage-to-care in the U.S.: a systematic review.Implementation science communications · 2024Review
- Spillover effects of HIV testing policies: changes in HIV testing guidelines and HCV testing practices in drug treatment programs in the United States.BMC public health · 2016Article
- HIV testing among clients in high HIV prevalence venues: disparities between older and younger adults.AIDS care · 2015Article
- HIV testing trends: Southeastern Pennsylvania, 2002-2010.AIDS patient care and STDs · 2014Article
- Factors associated with human immunodeficiency virus screening of women during pregnancy, labor and delivery, United States, 2005-2006.Maternal and child health journal · 2014Article
- HIV testing in the nation's opioid treatment programs, 2005-2011: the role of state regulations.Health services research · 2014Article
- HIV testing implementation in two urban cities: practice, policy, and perceived barriers.PloS one · 2014Article
- Urological aspects of HIV and AIDS.Nature reviews. Urology · 2013Review
- HIV testing practices among black primary care physicians in the United States.BMC public health · 2013Article
- HIV antibody testing and its correlates among heterosexual attendees of sexually transmitted disease clinics in China.BMC public health · 2013Article
- Article
- Point-of-Care HIV Testing and Linkage in an Urban Cohort in the Southern US.AIDS research and treatment · 2013Article
- Patient and provider acceptance of oral HIV screening in a dental school setting.Journal of dental education · 2012Article
- Decreasing Missed Opportunities for HIV Testing in Primary Care through Enhanced Utilization of the Electronic Medical Record.Journal of AIDS & clinical research · 2012Article
- Factors affecting clinician educator encouragement of routine HIV testing among trainees.Journal of general internal medicine · 2012Article
- Short communication routine HIV testing in the emergency department: assessment of patient perceptions.AIDS research and human retroviruses · 2012Article
- Racial/ethnic and gender differences among older adults in nonmonogamous partnerships, time spent single, and human immunodeficiency virus testing.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2011Article
- Provider and practice characteristics associated with use of rapid HIV Testing by general internists.Journal of general internal medicine · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In September 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the "Revised Recommendations for HIV Testing of Adults, Adolescents, and Pregnant Women in Health-care Settings" to improve screening and diagnosis. The CDC now recommends that all patients in all health care settings be offered opt-out HIV screening without separate written consent and prevention counseling. State law on HIV testing is widely assumed to be a barrier to implementing the recommendations. To help policymakers and providers better understand their own legal context and to correct possible misunderstandings about statutory compatibility, a state-by-state review (including Washington, DC) of all statutes pertaining to HIV testing was performed and the consistency of these laws with the new recommendations was systematically assessed. Criteria were developed for classifying state statutory frameworks as consistent, neutral, or inconsistent with the new recommendations, and the implications for implementation of the CDC recommendations in these various legal contexts were examined. The statutory frameworks of 34 states and Washington, DC, were found to be either consistent with or neutral to the new CDC recommendations, which would enable full implementation. Statutory frameworks of 16 states were inconsistent with the new CDC recommendations, which would preclude implementation of 1 or more of the novel provisions without legislative change. In the 2 years since release of the recommendations, 9 states have passed new legislation to move from being inconsistent to consistent with the guidelines. State statutory laws are evolving toward greater compliance with the CDC recommendations. Policymakers, provider groups, consumer advocates, and other stakeholders should ensure that HIV screening practices comply with existing state law and work to amend inconsistent laws if they are interested in implementing the CDC recommendations.
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.