ArticleImplementation science : IS2011
A comparative evaluation of the process of developing and implementing an emergency department HIV testing program.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing the Impact of an Sexually Transmitted Infections Nurse on the Delivery of Sexually Transmitted Infections/Human Immunodeficiency Virus Services in an Inner-City Emergency Department Using a Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Syphilis Point-of-Care Test During a Syphilis Outbreak in Alberta, Canada.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2026Article
- Implementation science promotes clinical practice of guidelines: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Innovation and implementation determinants of HIV testing and linkage-to-care in the U.S.: a systematic review.Implementation science communications · 2024Review
- Testing for HIV infection in the emergency departments of 2 hospitals in the Southeastern United States.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2020Article
- Increasing the Offer, Shifting the Offer: Patients' Perspectives on Routinely Offering HIV Counseling and POC Testing in the Health Services Program of an Urban Community Health Centre.Frontiers in public health · 2020Article
- A mixed methods study of HIV-related services in buprenorphine treatment.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2017Article
- Australian health care providers' views on opt-out HIV testing.BMC public health · 2015Article
- Understanding patient acceptance and refusal of HIV testing in the emergency department.BMC public health · 2012Article
- Assessing Barriers and Facilitators to Participation in a Nurse-Driven, Opt-Out HIV Screening Program in the Emergency Department.Global qualitative nursing researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe 2006 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) HIV testing guidelines recommend screening for HIV infection in all healthcare settings, including the emergency department (ED). In urban areas with a high background prevalence of HIV, the ED has become an increasingly important site for identifying HIV infection. However, this public health policy has been operationalized using different models. We sought to describe the development and implementation of HIV testing programs in three EDs, assess factors shaping the adoption and evolution of specific program elements, and identify barriers and facilitators to testing.
methodsWe performed a qualitative evaluation using in-depth interviews with fifteen 'key informants' involved in the development and implementation of HIV testing in three urban EDs serving sizable racial/ethnic minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Testing program HIV prevalence ranged from 0.4% to 3.0%.
resultsThree testing models were identified, reflecting differences in the use of existing ED staff to offer and perform the test and disclose results. Factors influencing the adoption of a particular model included: whether program developers were ED providers, HIV providers, or both; whether programs took a targeted or non-targeted approach to patient selection; and the extent to which linkage to care was viewed as the responsibility of the ED. A common barrier was discomfort among ED providers about disclosing a positive HIV test result. Common facilitators were a commitment to underserved populations, the perception that testing was an opportunity to re-engage previously HIV-infected patients in care, and the support and resources offered by the medical setting for HIV-infected patients.
conclusionsED HIV testing is occurring under a range of models that emerge from local realities and are tailored to institutional strengths to optimize implementation and overcome provider barriers.
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.