Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: Nearly 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. METHODS: The objective was to evaluate health communication messages...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kasting, Monica L, Cox, Anthony D, Cox, Dena, Fife, Kenneth H, Katz, Barry P, Zimet, Gregory D
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4243315/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25374047
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0204-4
_version_ 1782346087526301696
author Kasting, Monica L
Cox, Anthony D
Cox, Dena
Fife, Kenneth H
Katz, Barry P
Zimet, Gregory D
author_facet Kasting, Monica L
Cox, Anthony D
Cox, Dena
Fife, Kenneth H
Katz, Barry P
Zimet, Gregory D
author_sort Kasting, Monica L
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Nearly 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. METHODS: The 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. RESULTS: Participants 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). CONCLUSIONS: None 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 REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00771537. Registration date: October 10. 2008
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4243315
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42433152014-11-26 The effects of HIV testing advocacy messages on test acceptance: a randomized clinical trial Kasting, Monica L Cox, Anthony D Cox, Dena Fife, Kenneth H Katz, Barry P Zimet, Gregory D BMC Med Research Article BACKGROUND: Nearly 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. METHODS: The 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. RESULTS: Participants 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). CONCLUSIONS: None 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 REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00771537. Registration date: October 10. 2008 BioMed Central 2014-11-06 /pmc/articles/PMC4243315/ /pubmed/25374047 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0204-4 Text en © Kasting et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Kasting, Monica L
Cox, Anthony D
Cox, Dena
Fife, Kenneth H
Katz, Barry P
Zimet, Gregory D
The effects of HIV testing advocacy messages on test acceptance: a randomized clinical trial
title The effects of HIV testing advocacy messages on test acceptance: a randomized clinical trial
title_full The effects of HIV testing advocacy messages on test acceptance: a randomized clinical trial
title_fullStr The effects of HIV testing advocacy messages on test acceptance: a randomized clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed The effects of HIV testing advocacy messages on test acceptance: a randomized clinical trial
title_short The effects of HIV testing advocacy messages on test acceptance: a randomized clinical trial
title_sort effects of hiv testing advocacy messages on test acceptance: a randomized clinical trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4243315/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25374047
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0204-4
work_keys_str_mv AT kastingmonical theeffectsofhivtestingadvocacymessagesontestacceptancearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT coxanthonyd theeffectsofhivtestingadvocacymessagesontestacceptancearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT coxdena theeffectsofhivtestingadvocacymessagesontestacceptancearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT fifekennethh theeffectsofhivtestingadvocacymessagesontestacceptancearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT katzbarryp theeffectsofhivtestingadvocacymessagesontestacceptancearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT zimetgregoryd theeffectsofhivtestingadvocacymessagesontestacceptancearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT kastingmonical effectsofhivtestingadvocacymessagesontestacceptancearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT coxanthonyd effectsofhivtestingadvocacymessagesontestacceptancearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT coxdena effectsofhivtestingadvocacymessagesontestacceptancearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT fifekennethh effectsofhivtestingadvocacymessagesontestacceptancearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT katzbarryp effectsofhivtestingadvocacymessagesontestacceptancearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT zimetgregoryd effectsofhivtestingadvocacymessagesontestacceptancearandomizedclinicaltrial