ArticlePublic health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)
Comparing Routine HIV and Hepatitis C Virus Screening to Estimate the Effect of Required Consent on HIV Screening Rates Among Hospitalized Patients.
Article in Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07039682 (Developing a Digital-Based Education and Self-Screening Model to Improve Knowledge, Self-Awareness, and HIV Testing Coverage Among Adolescents), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Developing a Digital-Based Education and Self-Screening Model to Improve Knowledge, Self-Awareness, and HIV Testing Coverage Among Adolescents
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- "How much more on the nurse?:" a qualitative analysis of inpatient nurses' perspectives on offering HIV testing.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- National HIV and HCV Screening Rates for Hospitalized People who Use Drugs Are Suboptimal and Heterogeneous Across 11 US Hospitals.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Hospitalization is a missed opportunity for HIV screening, pre-exposure prophylaxis, and treatment.Addiction science & clinical practice · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesRoutine screening for HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) among specified age cohorts is recommended. New York State requires consent before screening for HIV but not HCV. We sought to estimate the effect of the consent requirement on screening rates for HIV.
methodsWe performed a retrospective study of patients hospitalized in 2015-2016 at a tertiary care hospital in the Bronx, New York, during a period when prompts in the electronic health record facilitated screening for HIV and HCV among specified age cohorts. We compared proportions of patients eligible for screening for HIV and/or HCV who underwent screening and used generalized estimating equations and a meta-analytic weighted average to estimate an adjusted risk difference between undergoing HIV screening and undergoing HCV screening.
resultsAmong 11 938 hospitalized patients eligible for HIV and/or HCV screening, 38.5% underwent screening for HIV and 59.1% underwent screening for HCV. The difference in screening rates persisted after adjusting for patient and admission characteristics (adjusted risk difference = 22.0%; 95% CI, 20.6%-23.4%).
conclusionsWhereas the requirement for consent was the only difference in the processes of screening for HIV compared with screening for HCV, differences in how the 2 viruses are perceived may also have contributed to the difference in screening rates. Nevertheless, our findings suggest that requiring consent continues to impede progress toward the public health goal of routine HIV screening.
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.