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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |