Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26786744›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2016

Patient choice in opt-in, active choice, and opt-out HIV screening: randomized clinical trial.

Juan Carlos C Montoy, William H Dow, Beth C Kaplan

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01377857 (HIV Screening Take-up), which is not on this map. Cited by 68 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 4 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.

NCT01377857 nacompletednot on this map

HIV Screening Take-up: Evaluating Incentives and Opt-out Strategies

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, San FranciscoRan2011 to 2013Enrolled8,572ConditionsHIVArmsMonetary Incentive, Questionnaire Timing, HIV Test Offering
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

68 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Juan Carlos C MontoyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of California, 505 Parnassus Ave, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA juancarlos.montoy@ucsf.edu.
William H DowSchool of Public Health, University of California, 239 University Hall #7360, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-7360, USA.
Beth C KaplanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of California, 1001 Potrero Ave, San Francisco CA 94143, USA.

Funding

HIV screening take-up: evaluating incentives and opt-out strategiesRC4AG039078 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI DOW, WILLIAM H. · 2010 to 2010
$911k
NIA NIH HHS NIA 1RC4AG039078
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionWhat is the effect of default test offers--opt-in, opt-out, and active choice--on the likelihood of acceptance of an HIV test among patients receiving care in an emergency department?

methodsThis was a randomized clinical trial conducted in the emergency department of an urban teaching hospital and regional trauma center. Patients aged 13-64 years were randomized to opt-in, opt-out, and active choice HIV test offers. The primary outcome was HIV test acceptance percentage. The Denver Risk Score was used to categorize patients as being at low, intermediate, or high risk of HIV infection. STUDY ANSWER AND LIMITATIONS: 38.0% (611/1607) of patients in the opt-in testing group accepted an HIV test, compared with 51.3% (815/1628) in the active choice arm (difference 13.3%, 95% confidence interval 9.8% to 16.7%) and 65.9% (1031/1565) in the opt-out arm (difference 27.9%, 24.4% to 31.3%). Compared with active choice testing, opt-out testing led to a 14.6 (11.1 to 18.1) percentage point increase in test acceptance. Patients identified as being at intermediate and high risk were more likely to accept testing than were those at low risk in all arms (difference 6.4% (3.4% to 9.3%) for intermediate and 8.3% (3.3% to 13.4%) for high risk). The opt-out effect was significantly smaller among those reporting high risk behaviors, but the active choice effect did not significantly vary by level of reported risk behavior. Patients consented to inclusion in the study after being offered an HIV test, and inclusion varied slightly by treatment assignment. The study took place at a single county hospital in a city that is somewhat unique with respect to HIV testing; although the test acceptance percentages themselves might vary, a different pattern for opt-in versus active choice versus opt-out test schemes would not be expected. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Active choice is a distinct test regimen, with test acceptance patterns that may best approximate patients' true preferences. Opt-out regimens can substantially increase HIV testing, and opt-in schemes may reduce testing, compared with active choice testing. FUNDING, COMPETING INTERESTS, DATA SHARING: This study was supported by grant NIA 1RC4AG039078 from the National Institute on Aging. The full dataset is available from the corresponding author. Consent for data sharing was not obtained, but the data are anonymized and risk of identification is low.Trial registration Clinical trials NCT01377857.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient PreferenceAdolescentAdultEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHIV InfectionsHospitals, TeachingHospitals, UrbanHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID26786744
PMCPMC4718971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.