Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24866209›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2014

Barriers to provider-initiated testing and counselling for children in a high HIV prevalence setting: a mixed methods study.

Katharina Kranzer, Jamilah Meghji, Tsitsi Bandason, Ethel Dauya, Stanley Mungofa, Joanna Busza, Karin Hatzold, Khameer Kidia, Hilda Mujuru, Rashida A Ferrand

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Katharina KranzerDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Jamilah MeghjiBiomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Tsitsi BandasonBiomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Ethel DauyaBiomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Stanley MungofaHarare City Health Department, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Joanna BuszaDepartment of Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Karin HatzoldPopulation Services International, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Khameer KidiaBiomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Hilda MujuruDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Rashida A FerrandBiomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe; Clinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 095878/Z/11ZWellcome Trust 100714
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a substantial burden of HIV infection among older children in sub-Saharan Africa, the majority of whom are diagnosed after presentation with advanced disease. We investigated the provision and uptake of provider-initiated HIV testing and counselling (PITC) among children in primary health care facilities, and explored health care worker (HCW) perspectives on providing HIV testing to children. METHODS AND

findingsChildren aged 6 to 15 y attending six primary care clinics in Harare, Zimbabwe, were offered PITC, with guardian consent and child assent. The reasons why testing did not occur in eligible children were recorded, and factors associated with HCWs offering and children/guardians refusing HIV testing were investigated using multivariable logistic regression. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinic nurses and counsellors to explore these factors. Among 2,831 eligible children, 2,151 (76%) were offered PITC, of whom 1,534 (54.2%) consented to HIV testing. The main reasons HCWs gave for not offering PITC were the perceived unsuitability of the accompanying guardian to provide consent for HIV testing on behalf of the child and lack of availability of staff or HIV testing kits. Children who were asymptomatic, older, or attending with a male or a younger guardian had significantly lower odds of being offered HIV testing. Male guardians were less likely to consent to their child being tested. 82 (5.3%) children tested HIV-positive, with 95% linking to care. Of the 940 guardians who tested with the child, 186 (19.8%) were HIV-positive.

conclusionsThe HIV prevalence among children tested was high, highlighting the need for PITC. For PITC to be successfully implemented, clear legislation about consent and guardianship needs to be developed, and structural issues addressed. HCWs require training on counselling children and guardians, particularly male guardians, who are less likely to engage with health care services. Increased awareness of the risk of HIV infection in asymptomatic older children is needed.

Indexed as

Epidemiologic StudiesAdolescentAdultChildCounselingFemaleHealth EducationHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelHIV InfectionsHumansMalePrevalenceRefusal to ParticipateZimbabwe

Identifiers

PMID24866209
PMCPMC4035250

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.