 |
|
Effect of HIV Reporting by Name on Use of HIV Testing in Publicly Funded Counseling and Testing Programs
Allyn K. Nakashima, MD;
Rosemarie Horsley;
Robert L. Frey, PhD;
Patricia A. Sweeney, MPH;
J. Todd Weber, MD;
Patricia L. Fleming, PhD
JAMA. 1998;280:1421-1426.
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.
From the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga.
RELATED ARTICLE
Multistate Evaluation of Anonymous HIV Testing and Access to Medical Care
Andrew B. Bindman, Dennis Osmond, Frederick M. Hecht, J. Stan Lehman, Karen Vranizan, Dennis Keane, Arthur Reingold, and and the Multistate Evaluation of Surveillance of HIV Study Group
JAMA. 1998;280(16):1416-1420.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
The Effect of Name-Based Reporting and Partner Notification on HIV Testing in New York State
Tesoriero et al.
Am. J. Public Health 2008;98:728-735.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Screening for HIV: A Review of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Chou et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2005;143:55-73.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Mandatory reporting of HIV infection and opt-out prenatal screening for HIV infection: effect on testing rates
Jayaraman et al.
CMAJ 2003;168:679-682.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
HIV Testing After Implementation of Name-Based Reporting
Aragon et al.
JAMA 1999;281:1377-1380.
FULL TEXT
Studying the Legal Management of HIV-Related Stigma
BURRIS
American Behavioral Scientist 1999;42:1229-1243.
ABSTRACT
Effect of Named HIV Reporting on Publicly Funded Testing
AIDS Clin Care 1999;1999:5-5.
FULL TEXT
Reporting HIV Cases: Anonymous Tests or Naming Names
JWatch Infect. Diseases 1999;1999:12-12.
FULL TEXT
The Complexities of HIV Testing Mount
JWatch General 1998;1998:2-2.
FULL TEXT
|
