↓ Skip to main content

The ethics of feedback of HIV test results in population-based surveys of HIV infection

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The ethics of feedback of HIV test results in population-based surveys of HIV infection
Published in
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, August 2013
DOI 10.2471/blt.13.117309
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dermot Maher

Abstract

Population-based disease prevalence surveys raise ethical questions, including whether participants should be routinely told their test results. Ethical guidelines call for informing survey participants of any clinically relevant finding to enable appropriate management. However, in anonymous surveys of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, participants can "opt out" of being given their test results or are offered the chance to undergo voluntary HIV testing in local counselling and testing services. This is aimed at minimizing survey participation bias. Those who opt out of being given their HIV test results and who do not seek their results miss the opportunity to receive life-saving antiretroviral therapy. The justification for HIV surveys without routine feedback of results to participants is based on a public health utility argument: that the benefits of more rigorous survey methods - reduced participation bias - outweigh the benefits to individuals of knowing their HIV status. However, people with HIV infection have a strong immediate interest in knowing their HIV status. In consideration of the ethical value of showing respect for people and thereby alleviating suffering, an argument based on public health utility is not an appropriate justification. In anonymous HIV surveys as well as other prevalence surveys of treatable conditions in any setting, participation should be on the basis of routine individual feedback of results as an integral part of fully informed participation. Ensuring that surveys are ethically sound may stimulate participation, increase a broader uptake of HIV testing and reduce stigmatization of people who are HIV-positive.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unknown 44 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2018.
All research outputs
#5,231,148
of 17,353,889 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of the World Health Organization
#1,706
of 3,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,885
of 273,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of the World Health Organization
#21
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,353,889 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,940 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 273,166 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.