↓ Skip to main content

The effects of HIV testing advocacy messages on test acceptance: a randomized clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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 effects of HIV testing advocacy messages on test acceptance: a randomized clinical trial
Published in
BMC Medicine, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12916-014-0204-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Monica L Kasting, Anthony D Cox, Dena Cox, Kenneth H Fife, Barry P Katz, Gregory D Zimet

Abstract

BackgroundNearly 1 in 5 people living with HIV in the United States are unaware they are infected. Therefore, it is important to develop and evaluate health communication messages that clinicians can use to encourage HIV testing.MethodsThe objective was to evaluate health communication messages designed to increase HIV testing rates among women and evaluate possible moderators of message effect. We used a randomized four-arm clinical trial conducted at urban community outpatient health clinics involving 1,919 female patients, 18 to 64 years old. The four health message intervention groups were: i) information-only control; ii) one-sided message describing the advantages of HIV testing; iii) two-sided message acknowledging a superficial objection to testing (i.e., a 20 minute wait for results) followed by a description of the advantages of testing; and iv) two-sided message acknowledging a serious objection (i.e., fear of testing positive for HIV) followed by a description of the advantages of testing. The main outcome was acceptance of an oral rapid HIV test.ResultsParticipants were randomized to receive the control message (n =483), one-sided message (n =480), two-sided message with a superficial objection (n =481), or two-sided message with a serious objection (n =475). The overall rate of HIV test acceptance was 83%. The two-sided message groups were not significantly different from the controls. The one-sided message group, however, had a lower rate of testing (80%) than the controls (86%) (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47¿0.93; P =0.018). ¿Perceived obstacles to HIV testing¿ moderated this effect, indicating that the decrease in HIV test acceptance for the one-sided message group was only statistically significant for those who had reported high levels of obstacles to HIV testing (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.19¿0.67; P =0.001).ConclusionsNone of the messages increased test acceptance. The one-sided message decreased acceptance and this effect was particularly true for women with greater perceived obstacles to testing, the very group one would most want to persuade. This finding suggests that efforts to persuade those who are reluctant to get tested, in some circumstances, may have unanticipated negative effects. Other approaches to messaging around HIV testing should be investigated, particularly with diverse, behaviorally high-risk populations.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00771537. Registration date: October 10. 2008.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 53 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 24%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 29%
Social Sciences 7 13%
Psychology 6 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 17 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 October 2018.
All research outputs
#7,204,796
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,550
of 3,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,118
of 262,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#67
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,419 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.4. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 262,799 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.