Hutchinson, Angela B. and Corbie-Smith, Giselle and Thomas, Stephen B.
Download (134Kb) | Preview
The purpose of this study was to explore patient perspectives of rapid and routine HIV-testing in an urgent care center at an urban public hospital. We conducted structured focus groups during a clinical trial comparing routinely offered rapid HIV-testing, routinely offered enzyme immunoassay (EIA) testing, and conventional EIA testing. Participants of the six focus groups were 89% African American, 60% uninsured, and had a low educational status. Four independent coders analyzed the data using iterative content analysis. Rapid testing was preferred to EIA testing because it reduced the need for a return visit and stress of waiting for test results, though there were concerns about accuracy. Participants supported routinely offering testing, but there were concerns about privacy and cost. Fear and stigma were common reasons for refusing testing and not returning for results. Distrust and misconceptions about HIV, particularly regarding the importance of testing, were very common.
|Export/Citation:||EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII (Chicago style) | HTML Citation | OpenURL | Reference Manager|
|Social Networking:|| |
|Uncontrolled Keywords:||AIDS, Education, Prevention, HIV-testing, HIV testing, enzyme immunoassay (EIA) testing, EIA, enzyme, immunoassay, enzyme immunoassay|
|Subjects:||Health > Public Health > Chronic Illness & Diseases > HIV/Aids|
Practice > outreach
Practice > interventions
Research > studies
|Depositing User:||Users 24 not found.|
|Date Deposited:||31 Mar 2011|
|Last Modified:||23 Jun 2011 16:35|
|Link to this item (URI):||http://health-equity.lib.umd.edu/id/eprint/333|
Actions (login required)