1996
DOI: 10.1080/08870449608401992
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Psychological factors in hiv testing among sexually transmitted disease clinic patients: An exploratory study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…An example of these items is ''I will wait to see what my partner says we should do about condoms.'' Versions of this scale have been widely used in previous studies (Kalichman, Somlai, & Adair, 1996), with adequate levels of internal consistency (a ¼ .88-.93), and construct validity has been demonstrated (Carey et al, , 2000. In this study, behavioral intention scores were internally consistent at pre-(a ¼ .74) and post-intervention (a ¼ .74).…”
Section: Motivationmentioning
confidence: 52%
“…An example of these items is ''I will wait to see what my partner says we should do about condoms.'' Versions of this scale have been widely used in previous studies (Kalichman, Somlai, & Adair, 1996), with adequate levels of internal consistency (a ¼ .88-.93), and construct validity has been demonstrated (Carey et al, , 2000. In this study, behavioral intention scores were internally consistent at pre-(a ¼ .74) and post-intervention (a ¼ .74).…”
Section: Motivationmentioning
confidence: 52%
“… HBM variables Perceived susceptibility 1 item on Likert scale: ‘ I am so sure I don’t have the AIDS virus that I don’t have to be tested. ’ Perceived barriers to HIV testing 11 items on Likert scale Adapted from [ 163 ] α = 0.85 Self-reported previous HIV testing Perceived susceptibility Lower perceived susceptibility associated with less likelihood of testing (AOR 3.45, p < 0.01) Perceived barriers to HIV testing Higher perceived barriers associated with less likelihood of testing (AOR 1.15, p < 0.05) HBM variables together accounted for an additional 18 % variance of model (over and above demographic/behavioural factors), R 2 = 0.18, χ 2 = 24.29, p < 0.01 References Location, inclusion/exclusion and testing context Design and sampling Measurement of psychological variables Measure of testing behaviour Associations between psychological variables and testing Massari et al [ 53 ] France Urban area Aged ≥18 years Living in selected households in each census block Cross-sectional Systematic random sampling Response rate 71 %. n = 3023 1423 (47.1 %) males, 1600 (52.9 %) females Age range 18–60 years.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Likert-type responses ranged from 1 = definitely will not do to 5 = definitely will do , with higher mean scores (range 8–40) indicating increased intentions to reduce risk. An example of these items is: “I will wait to see what my partner says we should do about condoms.” Versions of this scale have been used in previous studies (Carey et al, 2000; Carey, Maisto et al, 1997; Kalichman, Somlai, & Adair, 1996). Cronbach’s alpha in our sample was .81.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%