ArticleBMJ open2023
Health and medical professionals' antenatal HIV testing practices and perceived barriers to routine testing in Tasmania, Australia: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study sought to explore health and medical professionals' antenatal HIV testing practices and the perceived barriers to routine testing in Tasmania, Australia.
designThis qualitative study undertook a Foucauldian-informed discourse analysis of 23 one-to-one semistructured phone interviews. The focus of our analysis was on language as a medium for interactions between clinicians and their patients.
settingPrimary health care and antenatal health services in the north, northwest and southern Tasmania, Australia.
participantsTwenty-three health and medical professionals (midwives (n=10), general practitioners (n=9) and obstetricians (n=4)) providing antenatal care.
resultsAntenatal HIV testing is practised within a discourse of ambiguous terminology, stigma and the perception that HIV is a theoretical risk, generating confusion among clinicians as to how and who is tested. This creates clinical hesitancy towards antenatal HIV testing, a barrier to universal prenatal HIV testing.
conclusionAntenatal HIV testing is undertaken within a discordant discourse generating clinical hesitancy where HIV is perceived as a theoretical risk and surrounded by stigma. Using neutral language and replacing the words 'routine' and 'recommended' with 'universal' testing in public health policy and clinical guidelines could increase health providers' confidence and reduce ambiguity and the legacy of HIV stigma.
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.