Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24647205›Full record

ArticleJournal of the International AIDS Society2014

Could you have said no? A mixed-methods investigation of consent to HIV tests in four African countries.

Carla Makhlouf Obermeyer, Cairn Verhulst, Khalil Asmar, MATCH study group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the International AIDS Society, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors.

Carla Makhlouf ObermeyerCenter for Research on Population and Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon; cm39@aub.edu.lb.
Cairn VerhulstIndependent Consultant, Dakar, Senegal.
Khalil AsmarDepartment of Epidemiology and Population Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
MATCH study group

Funding

Testing and Counseling for HIV: A Multi-Site StudyR01HD053268 · NICHD · WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION · PI OBERMEYER, CARLA M · 2006 to 2010
$2.2M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD053268NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD053268-05
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAlthough most studies report high frequencies of consent to HIV tests, critics argue that clients are subject to pressure, that acceptors later indicate they could not have refused, and that provider-initiated HIV testing raises serious ethical issues. We examine the meaning of consent and why clients think they could not have refused.

methodsClients in Burkina Faso, Kenya, Malawi and Uganda were asked about consenting to HIV tests, whether they thought they could have refused and why. Textual responses were analyzed using qualitative and statistical methods.

resultsAmong 926 respondents, 77% reported they could not have said no, but in fact, 60% actively consented to test, 24% had no objection and only 7% tested without consent. There were few significant associations between categories of consent and their covariates.

conclusionsRetrospectively asking clients if they could have refused to test for HIV overestimates coercion. Triangulating qualitative and quantitative data suggests a considerable degree of agency.

Indexed as

AIDS SerodiagnosisAdolescentAdultBurkina FasoCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInformed ConsentKenyaMalawiMaleMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CareSocioeconomic FactorsUgandaYoung AdultConsentethicsHIVqualitativesub-Saharan Africatesting

Identifiers

PMID24647205
PMCPMC3959275

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.