False-positive self-reports of HIV infection

Chintu, Chifumbe; Baboo, K.S.; Gould, S.; DuPont, Herbert L.; Murphy, James R.

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)61595-4

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In developed countries, studies among populations at high risk (such as drug users, prostitutes and prisoners) suggests that concurrence between individuals' self-reports of current HIV status and their HIV test results is high for sero-negative people (95-99%) but low for sero-positive people (40-70%) [9-12]. A study of attendees at a voluntary HIV testing centre in Zambia found a 30% rate of incorrect self-reports, with sero-positive patients being only slightly more accurate than sero-negative patients (72% v 60%) [13]. In contrast, a case-control study in Tanzania found no significant difference between perceived risk of infection and HIV status [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender variation in self-reported likelihood of HIV infection in comparison with HIV test results in rural and urban Nigeria

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundBehaviour change which is highly influenced by risk perception is a major challenge that HIV prevention efforts need to confront. In this study, we examined the validity of self-reported likelihood of HIV infection among rural and urban reproductive age group Nigerians.MethodsThis is a cross-sectional study of a nationally representative sample of Nigerians. We investigated the concordance between self-reported likelihood of HIV and actual results of HIV test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to assess whether selected respondents' characteristics affect the validity of self-reports.ResultsThe HIV prevalence in the urban population was 3.8% (3.1% among males and 4.6% among females) and 3.5% in the rural areas (3.4% among males and 3.7% among females). Almost all the respondents who claimed they have high chances of being infected with HIV actually tested negative (91.6% in urban and 97.9% in rural areas). In contrast, only 8.5% in urban areas and 2.1% in rural areas, of those who claimed high chances of been HIV infected were actually HIV positive. About 2.9% and 4.3% from urban and rural areas respectively tested positive although they claimed very low chances of HIV infection. Age, gender, education and residence are factors associated with validity of respondents' self-perceived risk of HIV infection.ConclusionSelf-perceived HIV risk is poorly sensitive and moderately specific in the prediction of HIV status. There are differences in the validity of self-perceived risk of HIV across rural and urban populations.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender variation in self-reported likelihood of HIV infection in comparison with HIV test results in rural and urban Nigeria

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Inaccuracies seem to be largely driven by ‘false positives’, that is, individuals who perceive themselves to be at an elevated risk of HIV/AIDS, but who are, in fact, uninfected. In another example, 33% of clients at a VCT center in Zambia gave incorrect self reports of their HIV/AIDS status, and 53% of these inaccurate self-reports were for individuals who thought they were HIV positive but were in fact HIV negative (Chintu et al 1997). Because those seeking VCT may do so because they are already experiencing symptoms of AIDS, it is not surprising that false-positive HIV assessments were slightly more common at a VCT center than in a population-based sample: in rural Malawi, approximately 26% of respondents incorrectly thought they were HIV positive, and 92.8% of those who thought they were infected were actually HIV negative (Bignami-Van Assche et al 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

HIV Risk Among Currently Married Couples in Rural Malawi: What Do Spouses Know About Each Other?

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In countries with generalized HIV/AIDS epidemics, married couples have a shared risk of acquiring HIV/AIDS. Yet very little research has adopted a couple-level perspective to investigate perceived risk of HIV infection. In this paper, we used population-based data from 768 married monogamous couples in the 2004 Malawi Diffusion and Ideational Change Project (MDICP) to compare respondents’ perceptions about their spouses’ HIV status to their spouses’ actual HIV status. Using chi-squared and Kappa coefficient statistics, we evaluated how accurately respondents assess their spouse’s HIV status, and compared the assessment of their spouse’s HIV status with their assessment of their own serostatus. We found that individuals tend to overestimate their spouse’s as well as their own risk of having HIV. Husbands were generally more accurate in assessing their own risk of HIV infection than that of their wives, but wives were more accurate in assessing the HIV status of their spouses. In our multivariate logistic regression results, we found that marital infidelity is the most important correlate of overestimating individual and spousal HIV risk.

show abstract

“…A study of attenders at a voluntary HIV testing centre in Zambia found a 30% rate of incorrect self-reports, with seropositive patients being only slightly more accurate than seronegative patients (72% v 60%). 7 In contrast, a case-control study in Tanzania found no significant association between perceived risk of infection and HIV status. 8 In this paper, we examine the validity of self-reported likelihood of current HIV infection among the general population in rural Malawi by comparing survey responses with the results of oral fluid assays for HIV antibodies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

The validity of self-reported likelihood of HIV infection among the general population in rural Malawi

Bignami

Chao

Anglewicz

et al. 2006

Sexually Transmitted Infections

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

False-positive self-reports of HIV infection

Cited by 6 publications

References 4 publications

Gender variation in self-reported likelihood of HIV infection in comparison with HIV test results in rural and urban Nigeria

Gender variation in self-reported likelihood of HIV infection in comparison with HIV test results in rural and urban Nigeria

HIV Risk Among Currently Married Couples in Rural Malawi: What Do Spouses Know About Each Other?

The validity of self-reported likelihood of HIV infection among the general population in rural Malawi

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About