Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21304973›Full record

ArticlePloS one2011

Who tests, who doesn't, and why? Uptake of mobile HIV counseling and testing in the Kilimanjaro Region of Tanzania.

Jan Ostermann, Elizabeth A Reddy, Meghan M Shorter, Charles Muiruri, Antipas Mtalo, Dafrosa K Itemba, Bernard Njau, John A Bartlett, John A Crump, Nathan M Thielman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Jan OstermannDuke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Elizabeth A Reddy
Meghan M Shorter
Charles Muiruri
Antipas Mtalo
Dafrosa K Itemba
Bernard Njau
John A Bartlett
John A Crump
Nathan M Thielman
Duke Medical Center · USChristian Medical College & Hospital · INDuke Institute for Health Innovation · USDuke University · USTumaini University · TZ

Funding

Social and Behavioral Sciences CoreP30AI064518 · NIAID · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI Susanna Naggie, GEORGIA Doris TOMARAS · 2005 to 2026
$50.5M
Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA)- T32T32AI007392 · NIAID · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI Amy Lynn Corneli, Guido Ferrari · 1990 to 2026
$9.8M
AIDS International Training and Research ProgramD43TW006732 · FIC · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI BARTLETT, JOHN A · 2004 to 2012
$2.7M
FIC NIH HHS D43 TW006732NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI064518NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI 64518NIAID NIH HHS T32 AI007392NIAID NIH HHS T32 AI007392-18NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI-03-036NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI06984
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOptimally, expanded HIV testing programs should reduce barriers to testing while attracting new and high-risk testers. We assessed barriers to testing and HIV risk among clients participating in mobile voluntary counseling and testing (MVCT) campaigns in four rural villages in the Kilimanjaro Region of Tanzania.

methodsBetween December 2007 and April 2008, 878 MVCT participants and 506 randomly selected community residents who did not access MVCT were surveyed. Gender-specific logistic regression models were used to describe differences in socioeconomic characteristics, HIV exposure risk, testing histories, HIV related stigma, and attitudes toward testing between MVCT participants and community residents who did not access MVCT. Gender-specific logistic regression models were used to describe differences in socioeconomic characteristics, HIV exposure risk, testing histories, HIV related stigma, and attitudes toward testing, between the two groups.

resultsMVCT clients reported greater HIV exposure risk (OR 1.20 [1.04 to 1.38] for males; OR 1.11 [1.03 to 1.19] for females). Female MVCT clients were more likely to report low household expenditures (OR 1.47 [1.04 to 2.05]), male clients reported higher rates of unstable income sources (OR 1.99 [1.22 to 3.24]). First-time testers were more likely than non-testers to cite distance to testing sites as a reason for not having previously tested (OR 2.17 [1.05 to 4.48] for males; OR 5.95 [2.85 to 12.45] for females). HIV-related stigma, fears of testing or test disclosure, and not being able to leave work were strongly associated with non-participation in MVCT (ORs from 0.11 to 0.84).

conclusionsMVCT attracted clients with increased exposure risk and fewer economic resources; HIV related stigma and testing-related fears remained barriers to testing. MVCT did not disproportionately attract either first-time or frequent repeat testers. Educational campaigns to reduce stigma and fears of testing could improve the effectiveness of MVCT in attracting new and high-risk populations.

Indexed as

CounselingFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansMaleSex FactorsTanzania

Identifiers

PMID21304973
PMCPMC3031571
OpenAlexW2084043997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.