To determine the prevalence of testing for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) antibody among adults with various risk factors for infection, particularly those residing in large metropolitan areas where the bulk of cases of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) have occurred.
A nationwide, population-based telephone survey eliciting testing, sexual, and injection drug use histories.
A total of 2673 randomly chosen US residents and 8263 randomly chosen residents of 23 metropolitan areas containing 64% of reported cases of AIDS.
Testing for HIV antibody.
Overall, rates of individuals ever tested were only slightly higher in the urban areas (23%) than in the nation as a whole (21%). Testing frequencies were low among all risk groups (less than 40%), except men engaging in same-sex sexual activity (60%) and male and female injection drug users (46% and 73%, respectively). The low rate of testing (35%) among the largest risk group, heterosexual men and women engaging in unprotected sexual intercourse with multiple partners, was particularly worrisome.
To encourage antibody testing among the many at risk for infection who have not yet been tested, promotional campaigns should explain the universal susceptibility to infection among those at risk, and the availability of prophylactic medical therapies and social support services to persons who are HIV-seropositive. As there were comparable levels of risk-taking behavior among subjects in both samples, these campaigns must be designed to reach all segments of the population.
"Men and women who reported that they personally knew someone who had HIV/AIDS were more likely to have ever taken an HIV test, and women who believed that HIV was worse in their community than in other communities in Philadelphia were more likely to have tested. These findings are supported by other research that has shown that personally knowing someone who has HIV or AIDS is associated with a higher perceived risk for HIV (Henson et al., 1998) and an increased likelihood of HIV testing (Berrios et al., 1993), and that a perception of community risk may motivate some high-risk individuals to test (Downing et al., 2001). "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This study determined the overall prevalence of HIV testing within a community sample of heterosexual men and women at high risk for HIV infection, and analysed the gender-specific individual- and structural-level barriers and facilitators to testing. Data were collected through 1,643 personal interviews conducted in Philadelphia between 1999 and 2000. Overall, 79.4% of participants had ever taken an HIV test; women were significantly more likely to have tested than were men. Among the individual-level factors we examined, very few, including sexual and drug-using risk behaviours, were significantly associated with an increased likelihood of ever being tested for HIV. Structural-level factors were important correlates of HIV testing for both women and men. Results of this study indicate that there are gender-based similarities and differences in the correlates of testing, and that efforts to increase HIV testing must consider how structural factors, including access to health care, may deter or facilitate opportunities for HIV testing. In particular, efforts to improve the uptake of HIV testing by heterosexual men at high risk should focus on improving men's access to, and utilization of, routine health care.
AIDS Care 03/2005; 17(2):125-40. DOI:10.1080/09541020512331325653 · 1.60 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This paper assesses consistency in self-reports of human immunodeficiency virus testing using two waves of longitudinal data from a large, national probability survey, the National AIDS Behavioral Survey. Of those reporting at Wave I that they had been tested for reasons other than blood donation, 18 percent reported at Wave 2 that they had never been tested. Of those reporting at Wave I that they had been tested when they donated blood, 29 percent reported at Wave 2 that they had never been tested. Inconsistent responses may be due to poor recall and to high self-presentation bias, that is, a desire to provide socially acceptable answers. Poor recall may be exacerbated by passive conditions such as blood donation. The authors conclude with recommendations for reducing measurement error in surveys of testing behavior.
Public Health Reports 110(6):749-53. · 1.55 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objectives: To evaluate factors that predict HIV testing using the model of health care utilisation as its conceptual framework and to analyse some of the factors that encourage or inhibit seeking an HIV test in this population. Method: A cross sectional questionnaire study in two Genito-Urinary Medicine (GUM) clinics in central Scotland. A final sample of 195 represented a 91% response rate. Participants were categorised by their HIV testing status (already tested, planning to be tested, no intention to seek testing). Results: The 'already tested' and 'planning to be tested' groups were combined as there were no significant differences on reported risk behaviours. Analysis therefore compared two groups those 'testing' (n = 66) and 'not testing' (n = 129). 67% of those not tested for HIV reported at least one HIV risk factor. Perceived risk was the strongest predictor of HIV testing using our model. Perception of risk and actual risk were not correlated. Those not seeking testing endorsed less benefits of testing and more denial of the need to be tested. Same day testing and testing without an appointment were endorsed as factors to promote testing. Conclusion: To encourage people who have high risk factors to access HIV testing, programmes should: (1) highlight the benefits of testing which would be lost if people do not test, eg. effective drug treatments (2) increase the range of HIV testing services available (eg. same day testing). Furthermore, studies to determine the main predictors of perceived risk are needed if we are to increase testing in relevant populations.
Irish journal of psychological medicine 01/2001; 18(2).
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.