What do pregnant women think about the HIV test? A qualitative study

Boyd, Fiona M; Simpson, Wendy; Hart, Graham; Johnstone, Frank D.; Goldberg, David J.

doi:10.1080/09540129948171

Cited by 36 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Women opting out of HIV testing were significantly older, supporting previous literature [2][3][4], and had higher gravidity and parity (data not shown) than the women who agreed to HIV testing. A higher proportion of specimens from the southern part of the province were not screened for HIV, which may indicate a difference in prenatal screening protocol among some clinicians in those regions.…”

supporting

confidence: 77%

“…A study in 2000 indicated that older women and First Nations women (i.e., those with Indian treaty status) were most likely to opt out [2]. Older maternal age [3,4], being married [3,4], and a low perception of HIV infection risk [3,5,6] have been identified as factors associated with not being tested prenatally for HIV in other populations. Although these factors may be associated with lower HIV risk behaviors, it has also been demonstrated that pregnant women who decline HIV testing are often basing their risk assumptions on a poor understanding of HIV transmission risks [5].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

HIV Seroprevalence among Women Opting Out of Prenatal HIV Screening in Alberta, Canada: 2002-2004

Plitt

Singh

Lee

et al. 2007

Clinical Infectious Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alberta, Canada, uses an "opt-out" strategy for prenatal HIV testing. We examined demographic characteristics of and HIV seroprevalence among women opting out. The proportion of total specimens that were from women who opted out decreased from 4.3% in 2002 to 3.6% in 2004 ( ), P ! .001 and HIV seroprevalence among these specimens was 0.07%, which was 3.3 times higher than the HIV seroprevalence among specimens from women who opted in. Women opting out may have a higher HIV infection risk.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 77%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

HIV Seroprevalence among Women Opting Out of Prenatal HIV Screening in Alberta, Canada: 2002-2004

Plitt

Singh

Lee

et al. 2007

Clinical Infectious Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Craig has shared injecting equipment and reflects on his own feelings about the HIV test with regard to the potential spread of infection to his sexual partner and unborn child: As this extract shows, HIV testing is not currently a priority but closely allied to this are Craig's concerns with HIV and not wanting to know whether he is infected. Other studies also show how HIV testing can be a lower priority compared with other, more pressing, concerns [24].…”

Section: 'It Is Not the First Thing On My Mind': Reasons For Not Takimentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Getting Checked and Having the Test’: Drug Injectors’ Perceptions of HIV Testing – Findings from Qualitative Research Conducted in England

Hughes

2002

Eur Addict Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If HIV and AIDS policy initiatives are to be successful in tackling the spread of infection it is important to understand more about the ways in which people perceive HIV and AIDS. HIV testing is a policy initiative that will work when people take the test and make appropriate changes to their behaviour as a result. This paper is based on a study that used in-depth interviews and a vignette with drug injectors to explore drug injectors’ perceptions of HIV risk outside and inside prison. HIV testing was an integral part of drug injectors’ perceptions of risk. Three main themes emerged from the analysis of these data: first, reasons for not taking a test; second, reasons for taking a test; and third, the impact of testing upon subsequent behaviour. The paper ends with a summary and conclusions highlighting implications for future research and policy development.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, for those where HIV was identified during pregnancy the subsequent uptake of treatment was high (Gibb et al, 1997), clearly playing a role in reducing infant infection. HIV testing in maternity care appears to be possible, cost effective and acceptable (Boyd et al, 1999;Postma et al, 1999Postma et al, , 2000Simpson et al, 1999a,b). This policy integration was enabled, in part by midwife training (Grellier, 2000), by funding at some units of specialist midwives with training and expertise in HIV and by a high focus on the issue.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Sustaining HIV testing in pregnancy – Evaluation of routine offer of HIV testing in three London hospitals over 2 years

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study sets out to examine how routine offers of HIV testing for pregnant women in ante-natal (prenatal) clinics are managed over time. Data was collected over two time periods (2002, 2004) from all women booking clinics at three London hospitals. Data from 3,560 women, comprising 2,710 in 2002 (time 1) and 850 in 2004 (time 2) were gathered. Uptake of HIV testing, demographic variables, HIV-associated risks, pregnancy variables and uptake of other ante-natal tests were monitored. In the later study, details of partner testing and time spent discussing HIV was monitored. HIV test uptake with routine offer (RCT) was high. There was a significant increase in HIV testing over time from 85 to 91% (p<0.0001). In 2004, significantly more women had been previously tested for HIV (25 versus 41%, p<0.0001), more women refused all other ante-natal tests (rubella [0 versus 4% p<0.0001], syphilis [1 versus 5%, p<0.0001], Haemoglobin [1 versus 3%, p<0.0001], Down's syndrome [0 versus 13%, p<0.0001] and hepatitis B [1 versus 5%, p<0.0001]). Significantly less women refused HIV test (15 versus 9%, p<0.0001). Initially, HIV was the most frequently refused test (15%), whereas at time 2 Down's syndrome tests were most frequently declined. At time 1, 2% declined any test. By time 2, 14% of the sample declined any test (p<0.0001). Three percent of women had an established HIV risk at time 1 and 6% at time 2. Women with risk factors were significantly less likely to accept testing at time 2, but not at time 1 or not overall. Multivariable analysis was carried out to look at predictors of opting in and opting out of testing. At time 2 HIV test uptake was more likely if less than 3 min was spent discussing it (chi2=9.3, p=0.002). This information was not available at time 1. HIV testing in ante-natal care can be sustained over time. Challenges for the future relate to complex cases, test declining, ensuring that women with risk factors do not systematically decline and providing skills for midwives or referral pathways to deal with more demanding cases. It has been possible to normalise HIV testing. Women have responded with high HIV test uptake, but are also questioning other tests which were previously routinely offered.

show abstract

What do pregnant women think about the HIV test? A qualitative study

Cited by 36 publications

References 10 publications

HIV Seroprevalence among Women Opting Out of Prenatal HIV Screening in Alberta, Canada: 2002-2004

HIV Seroprevalence among Women Opting Out of Prenatal HIV Screening in Alberta, Canada: 2002-2004

‘Getting Checked and Having the Test’: Drug Injectors’ Perceptions of HIV Testing – Findings from Qualitative Research Conducted in England

Sustaining HIV testing in pregnancy – Evaluation of routine offer of HIV testing in three London hospitals over 2 years

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About