ArticlePloS one2015
Initial Health Assessments and HIV Screening under the Affordable Care Act.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Implementation Science: a Research Agenda and Call for Wider Application.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2021Review
- Missed Opportunities for HIV Screening of New Enrollees in California's Low Income Health Program.AIDS education and prevention : official publication of the International Society for AIDS Education · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 156,300 (95% CI 144,100-165,900) Americans living with HIV in 2012 were unaware of their infection. To increase knowledge of HIV status, CDC guidelines seek to make HIV screening a routine part of medical care. This paper examines how routinely California primary care providers test for HIV and how providers' knowledge of California's streamlined testing requirements, use of sexual histories, and having an electronic medical record prompt for HIV testing, relate to test offers.
methodsWe surveyed all ten California health plans offered under health reform's Insurance Exchange (response rate = 50%) and 322 primary care providers to those plans (response rate = 19%) to assess use of HIV screening and risk assessments.
resultsOnly 31.7% of 60 responding providers reported offering HIV tests to all or most new enrollees and only 8.8% offered an HIV test of blood samples all or most of the time despite the California law requiring that providers offer HIV testing of blood samples in primary care settings. Twenty-eight of the 60 providers (46.6%) were unaware that California had reduced barriers to HIV screening by eliminating the requirement for written informed consent and pre-test counseling. HIV screening of new enrollees all or most of the time was reported by 53.1% of the well-informed providers, but only 7.1% of the less informed providers, a difference of 46 percentage points (95% CI: 21.0%-66.5%). Providers who routinely obtained sexual histories were 29 percentage points (95% CI: 0.2%-54.9%) more likely to screen for HIV all or most of the time than those who did not ask sexual histories.
conclusionChanging HIV screening requirements is important, but not sufficient to make HIV testing a routine part of medical care. Provider education to increase knowledge about the changed HIV testing requirements could positively impact testing rates.
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.