ArticlePreventive medicine reports2024
Differences in Provider Hepatitis C Virus Screening Recommendations by Patient Risk Status.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Examining Artificial Intelligence Chatbots' Responses in Providing Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Information for Young Adults: Qualitative Content Analysis.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Article
- Prevalence of Hepatitis C Virus Antibody Testing Across Geography, Time, and Social Vulnerability Among Adults in Florida, 2015-2021.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974) · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Providers' recommendation is among the strongest predictors to patients engaging in preventive care. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare providers' Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) screening recommendation quality between high-risk and average-risk patients to determine if providers are universally recommending HCV screening, regardless of risk behaviors. This cross-sectional survey of 284 Indiana providers in 2020 assessed provider characteristics, HCV screening recommendation practices (strength, presentation, frequency, timeliness), self-efficacy, and barriers to recommending HCV screening. T-test and Chi-square compared recommendation practices for high-risk and average-risk patients. Prevalence ratios were calculated for variables associated with HCV recommendation strength comparing high-risk and average-risk patients. Logistic regression analyses examined factors associated with HCV recommendation strength for high- and average-risk patients, with odds ratios. Compared to average-risk patients, high-risk patients received higher proportion of HCV recommendations that were strong (70.4 % v. 42.4 %), routine (61.9 % v. 55.6 %), frequent (37.7 % v. 28 %), and timely (74.2 % v. 54.9 %) (P-values < 0.001). Compared to average-risk patients, providers with high-risk patients had a lower percentage of giving a strong recommendation if they were nurse practitioner (PR = 0.49). For high-risk patients, providers with higher self-efficacy (aOR = 2.16;95 %CI = 0.99-4.69) had higher odds, while those with higher perceived barriers (aOR = 0.19;95 %CI = 0.09-0.39) and those with an internal medicine specialty compared to family medicine (aOR = 0.22;95 %CI = 0.08-0.57) had lower odds of giving a strong recommendation. These data suggest providers are not universally recommending HCV screening for all adults regardless of reported risk. Future research should translate these findings into multilevel interventions to improve HCV screening recommendations regardless of patient risk status.
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.