Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21627851›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2011

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.

Peter MacPherson, Anu Chawla, Kathy Jones, Emer Coffey, Vida Spaine, Ian Harrison, Pauline Jelliman, Penelope Phillips-Howard, Caryl Beynon, Miriam Taegtmeyer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Acceptability and barriers to rapid HIV/syphilis testing among pregnant Wayuu women in Colombia: A cross-sectional pragmatic study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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 1 country.

Peter MacPhersonClinical Group, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, L3 5QA Liverpool, UK. p.macpherson@liv.ac.uk
Anu Chawla
Kathy Jones
Emer Coffey
Vida Spaine
Ian Harrison
Pauline Jelliman
Penelope Phillips-Howard
Caryl Beynon
Miriam Taegtmeyer
Liverpool Community Health NHS Trust · GBLiverpool John Moores University · GBLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine · GBRoyal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital NHS Trust · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn Liverpool, injecting drug users (IDUs), men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM) and UK Africans experience a disproportionate burden of HIV, yet services do not reach out to these groups and late presentations continue. We set out to: increase testing uptake in targeted marginalized groups through a community and genitourinary medicine (GUM)-based point of care testing (POCT) programme; and conduct a process evaluation to examine service provider inputs and document service user perceptions of the programme.

methodsMixed quantitative, qualitative and process evaluation methods were used. Service providers were trained to use fourth generation rapid antibody/antigen HIV tests. Existing outreach services incorporated POCT into routine practice. Clients completed a semi-structured questionnaire and focus group discussions (FGDs) were held with service providers.

resultsBetween September 2009 and June 2010, 953 individuals underwent POCT (GUM: 556 [59%]; community-based sites: 397 [42%]). Participants in the community were more likely to be male (p = 0.028), older (p < 0.001), of UK African origin (p < 0.001) and IDUs (p < 0.001) than participants from the GUM clinic. Seventeen new HIV diagnoses were confirmed (prevalence = 1.8%), 16 of whom were in risk exposure categories (prevalence: 16/517, 3.1%). Questionnaires and FGDs showed that clients and service providers were supportive of POCT, highlighting benefits of reaching out to marginalised communities and incorporating HIV prevention messages.

conclusionsCommunity and GUM clinic-based POCT for HIV was feasible and acceptable to clients and service providers in a low prevalence setting. It successfully reached target groups, many of whom would not have otherwise tested. We recommend POCT be considered among strategies to increase the uptake of HIV testing among groups who are currently underserved.

Indexed as

Ambulatory Care FacilitiesCommunity Health ServicesCommunity-Institutional RelationsPatient Acceptance of Health CarePoint-of-Care SystemsAdultEnglandFeasibility StudiesFemaleFocus GroupsHIV SeropositivityHumansMaleProgram EvaluationSurveys and QuestionnairesUrogenital System

Identifiers

PMID21627851
PMCPMC3128022
OpenAlexW2043101891

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.