ArticleInternational journal of health sciences2015
Understanding Patients' Perspectives on Opt-Out, Incentivized, and Mandatory HIV Testing.
Article in International journal of health sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Prevalence of undiagnosed HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C among patients in an Indian emergency department.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2021Article
- Patients' response to an emergency department-based HIV testing program and perception of their friends' attitudes on HIV testing among patients seeking care at an urban emergency department in Baltimore, Maryland, USA.Journal of infection and public health · 2020Article
- Understanding how, why, for whom, and under what circumstances opt-out blood-borne virus testing programmes work to increase test engagement and uptake within prison: a rapid-realist review.BMC health services research · 2019Review
- Missed Opportunities for HIV Testing Among STD Clinic Patients.Journal of community health · 2018Article
- Universal opt-out screening for hepatitis C virus (HCV) within correctional facilities is an effective intervention to improve public health.International journal of prisoner health · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, widespread HIV testing is the best preventive action against further spread of the HIV epidemic. However, over 40% of the U.S. population has never been tested for HIV and 25% of those with HIV have never been tested. To increase testing rates, in 2006 the CDC advised healthcare settings to conduct testing on an opt-out basis.
methodsQualitative, semi-structured interviews with ten seropositive patients and ten seronegative were conducted to address the lack of studies investigating patients' acceptance of and attitude towards this and more novel testing models, e.g. incentivized or anonymous mandatory testing. Participants were asked about their HIV testing history and attitudes towards opt-out, incentivized, and mandatory anonymous HIV testing.
resultsMajor themes were identified using grounded theory data analysis. All participants were receptive to opt-out testing, and saw the removal of separate written consent as beneficial as long as patients were given the opportunity to consent in some form.
conclusionUltimately, both mandatory and opt-out testing were equally indicated by participants as being the most effective testing model at increasing testing rates. A firm understanding of patients' perspectives allows for development of effective HIV testing initiatives that are patient-sensitive and can substantially reduce HIV infection rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26609294PMC4633193What 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.