ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings2012
HIV screening in the health care setting: status, barriers, and potential solutions.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcome of an HIV education program for primary care providers: Screening and late diagnosis rates.PloS one · 2019Trial
- Investigating the Pregnancy and Post-Partum Health Experiences of Women Living with HIV.Maternal and child health journal · 2024Article
- Changing HCW attitudes: a case study of normalizing HIV service delivery in emergency departments.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- HIV Testing Strategies for Health Departments to End the Epidemic in the U.S.American journal of preventive medicine · 2021Review
- Substance use and HIV stage at entry into care among people with HIV.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2021Article
- Use of machine learning techniques to identify HIV predictors for screening in sub-Saharan Africa.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- Using a report card to increase HIV screening in a large primary care group practice.BMJ open quality · 2021Article
- Critical Ethics: How to Balance Patient Autonomy With Fairness When Patients Refuse Coronavirus Disease 2019 Testing.Critical care explorations · 2021Review
- Exploring the Spatial Determinants of Late HIV Diagnosis in Texas.Preventing chronic disease · 2020Article
- Observational
- Unexpected Diagnosis.Cureus · 2019Article
- Healthcare providers' knowledge, readiness, prescribing behaviors, and perceived barriers regarding routine HIV testing and pre-exposure prophylaxis in DeLand, Florida.SAGE open medicine · 2019Article
- Doing battle with "the monster:" how high-risk heterosexuals experience and successfully manage HIV stigma as a barrier to HIV testing.International journal for equity in health · 2018Article
- How well are U.S. primary care providers assessing whether their male patients have male sex partners?Preventive medicine · 2018Article
- A mixed methods study of HIV-related services in buprenorphine treatment.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2017Article
- Missed opportunities for earlier diagnosis of HIV in patients who presented with advanced HIV disease: a retrospective cohort study.BMJ open · 2016Observational
- Assessment and improvement of HIV screening rates in a Midwest primary care practice using an electronic clinical decision support system: a quality improvement study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2016Article
- Why Physicians Don't Ask: Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Barriers to HIV Testing-Making a Case for a Patient-Initiated Campaign.Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care · 2016Article
- Barriers and Facilitators to HIV Testing Among Women.HIV/AIDS research and treatment : open journal · 2016Article
- Mitigating HIV health disparities: the promise of mobile health for a patient-initiated solution.American journal of public health · 2014Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Thirty years into the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic in the United States, an estimated 50,000 persons become infected each year: highest rates are in black and Hispanic populations and in men who have sex with men. Testing for HIV has become more widespread over time, with the highest rates of HIV testing in populations most affected by HIV. However, approximately 55% of adults in the United States have never received an HIV test. Because of the individual and community benefits of treatment for HIV, in 2006 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended routine screening for HIV infection in clinical settings. The adoption of this recommendation has been gradual owing to a variety of issues: lack of awareness and misconceptions related to HIV screening by physicians and patients, barriers at the facility and legislative levels, costs associated with testing, and conflicting recommendations concerning the value of routine screening. Reducing or eliminating these barriers is needed to increase the implementation of routine screening in clinical settings so that more people with unrecognized infection can be identified, linked to care, and provided treatment to improve their health and prevent new cases of HIV infection in the United States.
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.