PURPOSE: Rapid human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) tests may be more acceptable to adolescents and may improve receipt of test results. We conducted a study to determine (a) adolescent preferences for different HIV testing methods (rapid oral fluid vs. rapid fingerstick vs. traditional venipuncture), (b) factors associated with choice of a rapid vs. traditional test, and (c) whether those who chose a rapid method were more likely to receive test results. METHODS: Participants (N=99, 13-22 years old, both genders) were recruited from an urban hospital-based adolescent primary care clinic, agreed to HIV testing with their choice of method, and completed a questionnaire assessing demographic characteristics and attitudes about HIV testing. Logistic regression modeling was used to determine factors associated with choice of a rapid versus traditional test. RESULTS: Half (50.5%) of participants chose rapid oral fluid testing, 30.3% traditional venipuncture testing, and 19.2% rapid fingerstick testing (p < .01). Factors independently associated with choice of a rapid versus traditional method included preference for an oral fluid versus blood test and perceived approval of HIV testing by one's healthcare provider. Participants who chose a rapid test were more likely to receive their test results within the follow-up period than participants who chose a traditional test (91.3% vs. 46.7%, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, 70% of adolescents preferred rapid to traditional HIV testing, and rapid testers were more likely to receive their results within the follow-up period. Offering rapid testing may lead to improved receipt of results among adolescents in urban primary care settings. Copyright 2010 Society for Adolescent Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: Rapid human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) tests may be more acceptable to adolescents and may improve receipt of test results. We conducted a study to determine (a) adolescent preferences for different HIV testing methods (rapid oral fluid vs. rapid fingerstick vs. traditional venipuncture), (b) factors associated with choice of a rapid vs. traditional test, and (c) whether those who chose a rapid method were more likely to receive test results. METHODS:Participants (N=99, 13-22 years old, both genders) were recruited from an urban hospital-based adolescent primary care clinic, agreed to HIV testing with their choice of method, and completed a questionnaire assessing demographic characteristics and attitudes about HIV testing. Logistic regression modeling was used to determine factors associated with choice of a rapid versus traditional test. RESULTS: Half (50.5%) of participants chose rapid oral fluid testing, 30.3% traditional venipuncture testing, and 19.2% rapid fingerstick testing (p < .01). Factors independently associated with choice of a rapid versus traditional method included preference for an oral fluid versus blood test and perceived approval of HIV testing by one's healthcare provider. Participants who chose a rapid test were more likely to receive their test results within the follow-up period than participants who chose a traditional test (91.3% vs. 46.7%, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, 70% of adolescents preferred rapid to traditional HIV testing, and rapid testers were more likely to receive their results within the follow-up period. Offering rapid testing may lead to improved receipt of results among adolescents in urban primary care settings. Copyright 2010 Society for Adolescent Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: H C Koenig; K Mounzer; G W Daughtridge; C E Sloan; L Lalley-Chareczko; G S Moorthy; S C Conyngham; A F Zuppa; L J Montaner; P Tebas Journal: HIV Med Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 3.180
Authors: Paul K Drain; Ashley R Bardon; Jane M Simoni; Tim R Cressey; Pete Anderson; Derin Sevenler; Ayokunle O Olanrewaju; Monica Gandhi; Connie Celum Journal: Curr HIV/AIDS Rep Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 5.071
Authors: Cheng-Ting Tsai; Peter V Robinson; Felipe de Jesus Cortez; Maria L B Elma; David Seftel; Narges Pourmandi; Mark W Pandori; Carolyn R Bertozzi Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2018-01-22 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Sabrina A Assoumou; Samantha M Paniagua; Benjamin P Linas; Jianing Wang; Jeffrey H Samet; Jonathan Hall; Laura F White; Curt G Beckwith Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Laurel A Donnell-Fink; Christian Arbelaez; Jamie E Collins; Anna Novais; Amy Case; Mary L Pisculli; William M Reichmann; Jeffrey N Katz; Elena Losina; Rochelle P Walensky Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2012-12-15 Impact factor: 3.731