OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated attitudes toward name-based reporting of HIV. METHODS: One hundred thirty high-risk, male repeat testers received information on the public health benefits of name-based reporting and reported their intentions to test. RESULTS: Of the 67 men who were randomly selected and asked their intentions before hearing the benefits, 63% said they would not test if reporting were required. After hearing the benefits, 19% changed their minds (P < .014). Of the 63 men who were asked only after hearing the benefits, 44% would not test. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing name-based reporting without working before-hand to change attitudes could undermine the benefits of both testing and HIV surveillance.
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated attitudes toward name-based reporting of HIV. METHODS: One hundred thirty high-risk, male repeat testers received information on the public health benefits of name-based reporting and reported their intentions to test. RESULTS: Of the 67 men who were randomly selected and asked their intentions before hearing the benefits, 63% said they would not test if reporting were required. After hearing the benefits, 19% changed their minds (P < .014). Of the 63 men who were asked only after hearing the benefits, 44% would not test. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing name-based reporting without working before-hand to change attitudes could undermine the benefits of both testing and HIV surveillance.
Entities:
Keywords:
Empirical Approach; Health Care and Public Health; Professional Patient Relationship
Authors: J Dennis Fortenberry; Mary McFarlane; Amy Bleakley; Sheana Bull; Martin Fishbein; Diane M Grimley; C Kevin Malotte; Bradley P Stoner Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 9.308