Literature DB >> 9801002

Effect of HIV reporting by name on use of HIV testing in publicly funded counseling and testing programs.

A K Nakashima1, R Horsley, R L Frey, P A Sweeney, J T Weber, P L Fleming.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Policies requiring confidential reporting by name to state health departments of persons infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) have potential to cause some of them to avoid HIV testing.
OBJECTIVE: To describe trends in use of HIV testing services at publicly funded HIV counseling and testing sites before and after the implementation of HIV reporting policies. DESIGN AND
SETTING: Analysis of service provision data from 6 state health departments (Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, and Tennessee) 12 months before and 12 months after HIV reporting was introduced. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Percent change in numbers of persons tested at publicly funded HIV counseling and testing sites after implementation of confidential HIV reporting by risk group.
RESULTS: No significant declines in the total number of HIV tests provided at counseling and testing sites in the months immediately after implementation of HIV reporting occurred in any state, other than those expected from trends present before HIV reporting. Increases occurred in Nebraska (15.8%), Nevada (48.4%), New Jersey (21.3%), and Tennessee (62.8%). Predicted decreases occurred in Louisiana (10.5%) and Michigan (2.0%). In all areas, testing of at-risk heterosexuals increased in the year after HIV reporting was implemented (Louisiana, 10.5%; Michigan, 225.1 %; Nebraska, 5.7%; Nevada, 303.3%; New Jersey, 462.9%; Tennessee, 603.8%). Declines in testing occurred among men who have sex with men in Louisiana (4.3%) and Tennessee (4.1%) after HIV reporting; testing increased for this group in Michigan (5.3%), Nebraska (19.6%), Nevada (12.5%), and New Jersey (22.4%). Among injection drug users, testing declined in Louisiana (15%), Michigan (34.3%), and New Jersey (0.6%) and increased in Nebraska (1.7%), Nevada (18.9%), and Tennessee (16.6%).
CONCLUSIONS: Confidential HIV reporting by name did not appear to affect use of HIV testing in publicly funded counseling and testing programs.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Health Care and Public Health; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9801002     DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.16.1421

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  11 in total

1.  Name-based reporting of HIV-positive test results as a deterrent to testing.

Authors:  W J Woods; J W Dilley; T Lihatsh; J Sabatino; B Adler; J Rinaldi
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Name-based reporting of HIV infection.

Authors:  P M Wortley; J S Lehman; P L Fleming
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Anonymous reporting of HIV infection: an evaluation of the HIV/AIDS surveillance system in Norway 1983-2000.

Authors:  P Aavitsland; O Nilsen; A Lystad
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 8.082

4.  The Changing Epidemic of HIV.

Authors: 
Journal:  Curr Infect Dis Rep       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 3.725

5.  The effect of name-based reporting and partner notification on HIV testing in New York State.

Authors:  James M Tesoriero; Haven B Battles; Karyn Heavner; Shu-Yin John Leung; Chris Nemeth; Wendy Pulver; Guthrie S Birkhead
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  Access of vulnerable groups to antiretroviral therapy among persons in care for HIV disease in the United States. HCSUS Consortium. HIV Cost and Services Utilization Study.

Authors:  R Andersen; S Bozzette; M Shapiro; P St Clair; S Morton; S Crystal; D Goldman; N Wenger; A Gifford; A Leibowitz; S Asch; S Berry; T Nakazono; K Heslin; W Cunningham
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Named reporting and mandatory partner notification in New York State: the effect on consent for perinatal HIV testing.

Authors:  Gail L Dolbear; Martha Wojtowycz; Linda T Newell
Journal:  J Urban Health       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.671

8.  Community and Provider Perspectives on Molecular HIV Surveillance and Cluster Detection and Response for HIV Prevention: Qualitative Findings From King County, Washington.

Authors:  Alic G Shook; Susan E Buskin; Matthew Golden; Julia C Dombrowski; Joshua Herbeck; Richard J Lechtenberg; Roxanne Kerani
Journal:  J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care       Date:  2021-10-26       Impact factor: 1.809

9.  Mandatory reporting of HIV infection and opt-out prenatal screening for HIV infection: effect on testing rates.

Authors:  Gayatri C Jayaraman; Jutta K Preiksaitis; Bryce Larke
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2003-03-18       Impact factor: 8.262

10.  Time series analysis comparing mandatory and voluntary notification of newly diagnosed HIV infections in a city with a concentrated epidemic.

Authors:  Juliana M Reyes-Urueña; Patricia García de Olalla; Santiago Perez-Hoyos; Joan A Caylà
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-04-12       Impact factor: 3.295

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.