ArticlePloS one2017
Patient and doctor perspectives on HIV screening in the emergency department: A prospective cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Assessing the Impact of an Sexually Transmitted Infections Nurse on the Delivery of Sexually Transmitted Infections/Human Immunodeficiency Virus Services in an Inner-City Emergency Department Using a Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Syphilis Point-of-Care Test During a Syphilis Outbreak in Alberta, Canada.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2026Article
- "I'm a really hard stick": barriers, facilitators, and preferences in emergency department HIV testing among people who inject drugs.AIDS care · 2025Article
- An Opt-Out Emergency Department Screening Intervention Leads to Major Increases in Diagnosis of Syphilis.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Reassessing HIV Detection Strategies: An Analysis of Opportunistic Screening vs. Indicator-Condition-Driven Diagnosis in Valencia, Spain.Journal of community health · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Increasing HIV early diagnosis by implementing an automated screening strategy in emergency departments.HIV medicine · 2022Observational
- Using the electronic medical record to increase testing for HIV and hepatitis C virus in an Appalachian emergency department.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
- Provider Perspectives on Barriers to Routine HIV Testing of Adolescent and Young Adult Patients in Emergency Department Settings.Behavioral medicine (Washington, D.C.)Article
- Assessing Barriers and Facilitators to Participation in a Nurse-Driven, Opt-Out HIV Screening Program in the Emergency Department.Global qualitative nursing researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe emergency department (ED) is mentioned specifically in the Swiss HIV testing recommendations as a site at which patients can benefit from expanded HIV testing to optimise early HIV diagnosis. At our centre, where local HIV seroprevalence is 0.2-0.4%, 1% of all patients presenting to the ED are tested for HIV. Barriers to HIV testing, from the patient and doctor perspective, and patient acceptability of rapid HIV testing were examined in this study.
methodsBetween October 2014 and May 2015, 100 discrete patient-doctor encounter pairs undertook a survey in the ED of Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland. Patients completed a questionnaire on HIV risk factors and were offered free rapid HIV testing (INSTI™). For every patient included, the treating doctor was asked if HIV testing had 1) been indicated according to the national testing recommendations, 2) mentioned, and 3) offered during the consultation.
resultsOf 100 patients, 30 had indications for HIV testing through risk factors or a suggestive presenting complaint (PC). Fifty patients accepted rapid testing; no test was reactive. Of 50 patients declining testing, 82% considered themselves not at risk or had recently tested negative and 16% wished to focus on their PC. ED doctors identified 20 patients with testing indications, mentioned testing to nine and offered testing to six. The main reason for doctors not mentioning or not offering testing was the wish to focus on the PC. DISCUSSION: Patients and doctors at our ED share the testing barrier of wishing to focus on the PC. Rapid HIV testing offered in parallel to the patient-doctor consultation increased the testing rate from 6% (offered by doctors) to 50%. Introducing this service would enable testing of patients not offered tests by their doctors and reduce missed opportunities for early HIV diagnosis.
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.