ArticleHIV medicine2026
A scoping review of the acceptability, feasibility and effectiveness of opt-out blood-borne virus (BBV) testing in secondary healthcare settings, in the UK and similar settings, using APEASE criteria.
Article in HIV medicine, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEarlier diagnosis of blood-borne viruses (BBVs)-HIV, hepatitis B (HBV) and hepatitis C (HCV)-remains a significant public-health focus. Opt-out testing in secondary healthcare settings can improve early diagnosis and linkage to care as part of BBV transmission elimination targets. This scoping review used APEASE criteria (acceptability, practicability, effectiveness, affordability, side-effects and equity) to evaluate opt-out BBV testing interventions in emergency departments (EDs) and medical assessment units (MAUs).
methodsA systematic search of three databases was conducted for peer-reviewed literature up to 30th June 2025. Inclusion criteria were: (a) opt-out BBV testing intervention; (b) taking place within a secondary care setting; and (c) in the UK, Ireland, Australia and Canada. Data were extracted and analysed using APEASE criteria.
resultsTwenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Opt-out testing was acceptable to patients and healthcare professionals, particularly when supported by clear communication, staff training and leadership engagement. Practicability varied by setting; barriers included time constraints, unclear responsibilities and logistical challenges. Automation using electronic systems facilitated implementation. Effectiveness was demonstrated through increased testing uptake and case identification, especially in EDs. Minimal evidence exists on affordability and is likely to vary by population prevalence. No significant side effects (unintended outcomes) were reported, and universal testing was associated with reduced stigma. Opt-out testing can improve access to testing for underserved populations, supporting its role in promoting health equity.
conclusionOpt-out BBV testing in secondary care settings (EDs and MAUs) is a feasible, effective and equitable intervention when supported by appropriate infrastructure and resources. Efforts should focus on optimizing implementation strategies and extending opt-out testing, including to lower-prevalence settings.
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.