Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24347734›Full record

ArticleBulletin of the World Health Organization2013

The ethics of feedback of HIV test results in population-based surveys of HIV infection.

Dermot Maher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Understanding why people participate in HIV surveillance.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2015
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Knowledge is power; information is liberation.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2013
    Article
  11. Ethical Challenges of HIV Partner Notification in Prisons.Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Dermot MaherInternational Portfolio Manager, Wellcome Trust, 215 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE, England .

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Population-based disease prevalence surveys raise ethical questions, including whether participants should be routinely told their test results. Ethical guidelines call for informing survey participants of any clinically relevant finding to enable appropriate management. However, in anonymous surveys of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, participants can "opt out" of being given their test results or are offered the chance to undergo voluntary HIV testing in local counselling and testing services. This is aimed at minimizing survey participation bias. Those who opt out of being given their HIV test results and who do not seek their results miss the opportunity to receive life-saving antiretroviral therapy. The justification for HIV surveys without routine feedback of results to participants is based on a public health utility argument: that the benefits of more rigorous survey methods - reduced participation bias - outweigh the benefits to individuals of knowing their HIV status. However, people with HIV infection have a strong immediate interest in knowing their HIV status. In consideration of the ethical value of showing respect for people and thereby alleviating suffering, an argument based on public health utility is not an appropriate justification. In anonymous HIV surveys as well as other prevalence surveys of treatable conditions in any setting, participation should be on the basis of routine individual feedback of results as an integral part of fully informed participation. Ensuring that surveys are ethically sound may stimulate participation, increase a broader uptake of HIV testing and reduce stigmatization of people who are HIV-positive.

Indexed as

Africa South of the SaharaHealth SurveysHIV InfectionsHIV SeropositivityHumansMass ScreeningPrevalence

Identifiers

PMID24347734
PMCPMC3845269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.