Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29017561›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2017

Trial and error: evaluating and refining a community model of HIV testing in Australia.

Kathleen E Ryan, Alisa Pedrana, David Leitinger, Anna L Wilkinson, Peter Locke, Margaret E Hellard, Mark Stoové

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. HIV and STI Testing Preferences for Men Who Have Sex with Men in High-Income Countries: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

7 authors.

Kathleen E RyanCentre for Population Health, Burnet Institute, Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. kathleen.ryan@burnet.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5892-4482
Alisa PedranaCentre for Population Health, Burnet Institute, Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
David LeitingerPRONTO!, Victorian AIDS Council, Rose St, Fitzroy, VIC, 3065, Australia.
Anna L WilkinsonCentre for Population Health, Burnet Institute, Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Peter LockePRONTO!, Victorian AIDS Council, Rose St, Fitzroy, VIC, 3065, Australia.
Margaret E HellardCentre for Population Health, Burnet Institute, Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Mark StoovéCentre for Population Health, Burnet Institute, Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 2012 regulatory approval of HIV rapid point of care (RPOC) tests in Australia and a national strategic focus on HIV testing provided a catalyst for implementation of non-clinical HIV testing service models. PRONTO! opened in 2013 as a two-year trial delivering peer-led community-based HIV RPOC tests targeting gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBM), with the aim of increasing HIV testing frequency. Initial data suggested this aim was not achieved and, as part of a broader service evaluation, we sought to explore client acceptability and barriers to testing at PRONTO! to refine the service model.

methodsWe present descriptive and thematic analyses of data from two in-depth evaluation surveys and four focus groups with PRONTO! clients focused on service acceptability, client testing history, intentions to test and barriers to testing for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

resultsThe three novel aspects of the PRONTO! model, testing environment, rapid-testing, peer-staff, were reported to be highly acceptable among survey and focus group participants. Focus group discussions revealed that the PRONTO! model reduced anxiety associated with HIV testing and created a comfortable environment conducive to discussing sexual risk and health. However, an absence of STI testing at PRONTO!, driven by restrictions on medical subsidies for STI testing and limited funds available at the service level created a barrier to HIV testing. An overwhelming majority of PRONTO! clients reported usually testing for STIs alongside HIV and most reported plans to seek STI testing after testing for HIV at PRONTO!. When deciding where, when and what to test for, clients reported balancing convenience and relative risk and consequences for each infection as guiding their decision-making.

conclusionsA community-based and peer-led HIV testing model reduced previously reported barriers to HIV testing, while introducing new barriers. The absence of STI testing at PRONTO! and the need to access multiple services for comprehensive sexual health screening, created a significant service engagement barrier for some clients. Understanding client motivations to access testing and ensuring novel service models meet client needs is crucial for developing acceptable sexual health services for high-risk populations.

Indexed as

Community Health ServicesAdolescentAdultAustraliaFocus GroupsHealth Care SurveysHIV InfectionsHomosexuality, MaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient SatisfactionSexual BehaviorSexually Transmitted DiseasesYoung AdultAcceptabilityAustraliaBarriersCommunity serviceHIV testingMsmService refinement

Identifiers

PMID29017561
PMCPMC5635501

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.