Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38395609›Full record

Observational studySexually transmitted infections2024

Assessing the effectiveness of HIV/STI risk communication displays among Melbourne Sexual Health Centre attendees: a cross-sectional, observational and vignette-based study.

Phyu Mon Latt, Nyi Nyi Soe, Christopher Fairley, Xianglong Xu, Alicia King, Rashidur Rahman, Jason J Ong, Tiffany R Phillips, Lei Zhang

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Sexually transmitted infections, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Machine learning for personalized risk assessment of HIV, syphilis, gonorrhoea and chlamydia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

9 authors.

Phyu Mon LattArtificial Intelligence and Modelling in Epidemiology Program, Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5880-5731
Nyi Nyi SoeArtificial Intelligence and Modelling in Epidemiology Program, Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Christopher FairleyCentral Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Xianglong XuMelbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Carlton, Victoria, Australia.
Alicia KingCentral Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Rashidur RahmanMelbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Carlton, Victoria, Australia.
Jason J OngCentral Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5784-7403
Tiffany R Phillips *Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6920-7710
Lei Zhang *Artificial Intelligence and Modelling in Epidemiology Program, Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia lei.zhang1@monash.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-2343-084X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIncreasing rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) over the past decade underscore the need for early testing and treatment. Communicating HIV/STI risk effectively can promote individuals' intention to test, which is critical for the prevention and control of HIV/STIs. We aimed to determine which visual displays of risk would be the most likely to increase testing or use of prevention strategies.

methodsA vignette-based cross-sectional survey was conducted with 662 clients (a median age of 30 years (IQR: 25-36), 418 male, 203 female, 41 other genders) at a sexual health clinic in Melbourne, Australia, between February and June 2023. Participants viewed five distinct hypothetical formats, presented in a randomised order, designed to display the same level of high risk for HIV/STIs: icon array, colour-coded risk metre, colour-coded risk bar, detailed text report and guideline recommendation. They reported their perceived risk, concern and intent to test for each risk display. Associations between the format of the risk display and the intention to test for HIV/STI were analysed using logistic regression.

resultsAbout 378 (57%) of participants expressed that the risk metre was the easiest to understand. The risk metre (adjusted OR (AOR)=2.44, 95% CI=1.49 to 4.01) and risk bar (AOR=2.08, CI=1.33 to 3.27) showed the greatest likelihood of testing compared with the detailed text format. The icon array was less impactful (AOR=0.73, CI=0.57 to 0.94). The risk metre also elicited the most concern but was the most preferred and understood. High-risk perception and concern levels were strongly associated with their intention to have an HIV/STI test.

conclusionsDisplaying risk differently affects an individual's perceived risk of an HIV/STI and influences their intention to test.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsSexual HealthSexually Transmitted DiseasesAdultCommunicationCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleSexual BehaviorHIV InfectionsINFECTIONRisk AssessmentSEXUAL HEALTH

Identifiers

PMID38395609
PMCPMC11041604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.