ArticleJournal of scientific innovation in medicine2024
Three Pilot Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating a Persuasive Health Communication Intervention for Adult Emergency Department Patients Declining HIV/HCV Testing.
Article in Journal of scientific innovation in medicine, 2024. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The lack of evidence-based interventions to overcome patient refusal limits the success of emergency department (ED)-based HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing for diagnostic purposes or screening. We created a persuasive health communication intervention (PHCI) designed to overcome ED patient reluctance to accept HIV/HCV testing. In three pilot randomized controlled trials (pRCTs), we evaluated the performance of the PHCI when delivered by video or in-person by an HIV/HCV counselor, and as compared to a control condition video. Methods: Adult ED patients who declined HIV/HCV screening were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1 allocation) in each pRCT as follows: pRCT 1: PHCI video vs. control condition video; pRCT 2: PHCI delivered in-person by HIV/HCV counselor vs. control condition video; and pRCT 3: PHCI delivered in-person by HIV/HCV counselor vs. the PHCI video. The primary outcome for each pRCT was acceptance of HIV/HCV testing post-intervention. Results: Acceptance of HIV, HCV or both tests post-intervention was: pRCT 1: PHCI video (n = 27) vs. control condition video (n = 28), 29.6% vs. 10.7%; p = 0.08; pRCT 2: PHCI delivered in-person by HIV/HCV counselor (n = 30) vs. control condition video (n = 30), 10.0% vs. 26.7%; p = 0.09; and pRCT3: PHCI delivered in-person by HIV/HCV counselor (n = 29) vs. the PHCI video (n = 29), 48.3% vs. 34.5%; p = 0.29. Conclusions: The results from these pRCTs are encouraging. ED patients who initially declined HIV/HCV testing can be persuaded instead to be screened for these infections. The PHCI, whether delivered in-person by an HIV/HCV counselor or video, is a promising intervention to encourage screening for these infections.
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.