Carey M Noland1, Nicole A Vaughn2, Sirena Sun3, Hans P Schlecht4. 1. Associate Professor of Communication Studies, Northeastern University 204 Lake Hall, Boston, MA 02115, c.noland@neu.edu , 617-373-7261. 2. Assistant Professor, Dept. of Health Management & Policy, Drexel University School of Public Health, 3215 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, nicole.vaughn@drexel.edu. 3. Graduate Researcher, Dept. of Health Management & Policy, Drexel University School of Public Health, 3215 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. 4. Assistant Professor of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases and HIV Medicine, Drexel University College of Medicine, Mail Stop 461, 245 N. 15th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102-1192.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, widespread HIV testing is the best preventive action against further spread of the HIV epidemic. However, over 40% of the U.S. population has never been tested for HIV and 25% of those with HIV have never been tested. To increase testing rates, in 2006 the CDC advised healthcare settings to conduct testing on an opt-out basis. METHODS: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews with ten seropositive patients and ten seronegative were conducted to address the lack of studies investigating patients' acceptance of and attitude towards this and more novel testing models, e.g. incentivized or anonymous mandatory testing. Participants were asked about their HIV testing history and attitudes towards opt-out, incentivized, and mandatory anonymous HIV testing. RESULTS: Major themes were identified using grounded theory data analysis. All participants were receptive to opt-out testing, and saw the removal of separate written consent as beneficial as long as patients were given the opportunity to consent in some form. CONCLUSION: Ultimately, both mandatory and opt-out testing were equally indicated by participants as being the most effective testing model at increasing testing rates. A firm understanding of patients' perspectives allows for development of effective HIV testing initiatives that are patient-sensitive and can substantially reduce HIV infection rates.
BACKGROUND: Currently, widespread HIV testing is the best preventive action against further spread of the HIV epidemic. However, over 40% of the U.S. population has never been tested for HIV and 25% of those with HIV have never been tested. To increase testing rates, in 2006 the CDC advised healthcare settings to conduct testing on an opt-out basis. METHODS: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews with ten seropositive patients and ten seronegative were conducted to address the lack of studies investigating patients' acceptance of and attitude towards this and more novel testing models, e.g. incentivized or anonymous mandatory testing. Participants were asked about their HIV testing history and attitudes towards opt-out, incentivized, and mandatory anonymous HIV testing. RESULTS: Major themes were identified using grounded theory data analysis. All participants were receptive to opt-out testing, and saw the removal of separate written consent as beneficial as long as patients were given the opportunity to consent in some form. CONCLUSION: Ultimately, both mandatory and opt-out testing were equally indicated by participants as being the most effective testing model at increasing testing rates. A firm understanding of patients' perspectives allows for development of effective HIV testing initiatives that are patient-sensitive and can substantially reduce HIV infection rates.
Entities:
Keywords:
HIV testing; incentivized HIV testing; mandatory HIV testing; opt-out HIV testing; patient education
Authors: Keri N Althoff; Stephen J Gange; Marina B Klein; John T Brooks; Robert S Hogg; Ronald J Bosch; Michael A Horberg; Michael S Saag; Mari M Kitahata; Amy C Justice; Kelly A Gebo; Joseph J Eron; Sean B Rourke; M John Gill; Benigno Rodriguez; Timothy R Sterling; Liviana M Calzavara; Steven G Deeks; Jeffrey N Martin; Anita R Rachlis; Sonia Napravnik; Lisa P Jacobson; Gregory D Kirk; Ann C Collier; Constance A Benson; Michael J Silverberg; Margot Kushel; James J Goedert; Rosemary G McKaig; Stephen E Van Rompaey; Jinbing Zhang; Richard D Moore Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Nicola M Zetola; Carlos G Grijalva; Sarah Gertler; C Bradley Hare; Beth Kaplan; Teri Dowling; Grant Colfax; Mitchell H Katz; Jeffrey D Klausner Journal: PLoS One Date: 2008-07-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Cassie Wicken; Ama Avornu; Carl A Latkin; Melissa A Davey-Rothwell; Jim Kim; Raza Zaidi; Richard Rothman; Yu-Hsiang Hsieh Journal: J Infect Public Health Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 3.718
Authors: Seth Francis-Graham; Nnenna Adaniya Ekeke; Corey Andrew Nelson; Tin Yan Lee; Sulaima El Haj; Tim Rhodes; Cecilia Vindrola; Tim Colbourn; William Rosenberg Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Sathishkumar Pandiselvam; Narendra N Jena; Aditi Ghatak-Roy; Nicholas Dreyer; Nehal Naik; Janice Blanchard; Kevin Davey Journal: J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open Date: 2020-12-07