Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T10:49:26.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors affecting GUM clinic attenders decisions and intentions to seek HIV testing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2014

Jeff Salt ,
Kate M Davidson  and
Jenina Harvey
Jeff Salt
Affiliation:
Yorkhill NHS Trust, Dalnair St, Glasgow, G3 8SJ, Scotland
Kate M Davidson
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological, Medicine, University of Glasgow, Scotland
Jenina Harvey
Affiliation:
Falkirk Royal Infirmary, Falkirk, Scotland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate factors that predict HIV testing using the model of health care utilisation as its conceptual framework and to analyse some of the factors that encourage or inhibit seeking an HIV test in this population.

Method: A cross sectional questionnaire study in two Genito-Urinary Medicine (GUM) clinics in central Scotland. A final sample of 195 represented a 91% response rate. Participants were categorised by their HIV testing status (already tested, planning to be tested, no intention to seek testing).

Results: The ‘already tested’ and ‘planning to be tested’ groups were combined as there were no significant differences on reported risk behaviours. Analysis therefore compared two groups those ‘testing’ (n = 66) and ‘not testing’ (n = 129). 67% of those not tested for HIV reported at least one HIV risk factor. Perceived risk was the strongest predictor of HIV testing using our model. Perception of risk and actual risk were not correlated. Those not seeking testing endorsed less benefits of testing and more denial of the need to be tested. Same day testing and testing without an appointment were endorsed as factors to promote testing.

Conclusion: To encourage people who have high risk factors to access HIV testing, programmes should: (1) highlight the benefits of testing which would be lost if people do not test, eg. effective drug treatments (2) increase the range of HIV testing services available (eg. same day testing). Furthermore, studies to determine the main predictors of perceived risk are needed if we are to increase testing in relevant populations.

Keywords

HIV testRisk behaviourPerceived riskGUM clinicHealth promotion
Type
Original Papers
Information
Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2001 , pp. 54 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Berrios, D, Hearst, N, Coates, TJ, Stall, R, Hudes, ES, Turner, H, Eversley, R, Catania, J. HIV antibody testing among those most at risk for HIV infection: the National Behaviour Survey. JAMA 1993; 270: 1576–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Elliot, L. HI/AIDS surveillance in Glasgow. Department of Public Health. Personal Communication. 1996.Google Scholar
3.Wortley, PM, Chu, SY, Diaz, T, Ward, JW, Doyle, B, Davidson, AJ, Checko, PJ, Herr, M, Conti, L, Fan, SA, Sorvillo, F, Mokotoff, E, Levy, A, Hermann, P, Norris-Walczak, E. HIV testing patterns: where, why, and when were persons with AIDS tested for HIV? AIDS 1995; 9: 487–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Philips, KA, Coates, TJ. HIV counselling and testing: research and policy issues. AIDS Care 1995; 7(2): 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Myers, T, Orr, KW, Locker, D, Jackson, EA. Factors affecting gay and bisexual mens decisions and intentions to seek HIV testing. Am J Public Health 1993; 83(5): 701–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Siegal, K, Levine, M, Brooks, C, Kern, R. The motivation of gay men for taking or not taking the HIV antibody test. Social Problems 1989; 36: 368–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Lyter, DW, Valdiserri, RO, Kingsely, LA. The HIV antibody test: Why gay men and bisexual men want or do not want to know their results. Public Health Rep 1987; 102: 468–74.Google Scholar
8.Bindman, AB, Osmond, D, Hecht, FM, Lehman, JS. Multistate evaluation of anonymous HIV testing and access to medical care. JAMA 1998; 16: 1416–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Phillips, KA, Coates, TJ, Eversley, RB, Catania, JA. Who plans to be tested for HIV or who would get tested if no one could find out the results? Am J of Prev Med 1995; 11(3): 156–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Kegeles, SM, Catania, JA, Coates, TJ. Many people who seek anonymous testing would avoid it under other circumstances. AIDS 1990; 4: 585–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Molitor, F, Bell, RA, Traux, SR, Ruiz, JD, Sun, RK. Predictors of failure to return for HIV test result and counselling by test site type. AIDS Educ Prev 1999; 11: 1–13.Google ScholarPubMed
12.Davies, PM, Hickson, FC, Weatherburn, P, Hunt, AJ. Sex, gaymen and AIDS. Falmer: London, 1993.Google Scholar
13.McCann, K, Wadsworth, E. The experience of having a positive HIV antibody test. AIDS Care 1991; 3: 343–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Meadows, J, Catalan, J, Gazzard, B. “I plan to have the HIV test” - Predictors of testing intention in women attending a London antenatal clinic. AIDS Care 1993; 5: 141–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Goldberg, D, Allardice, G, McMenamin, J, Codere, G, Raeside, F, Burns, G, Davis, B. Monitoring the Spread of HIV and AIDS in Scotland. AIDS News Supplement to the Weekly Report 1997; 32: 1–12.Google Scholar
16.Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Heterosexually acquired AIDS: United States 1993, MMWR 1994; 43: 155–160.Google Scholar
17.Center for Disease Control and Prevention. First 500,000 cases - 1995. MMWR 1995; 44: 46.Google Scholar
18.Beardsell, S, Coyle, A. A review of research on the nature and quality of HIV testing services: a proposal for process based studies. Soc Sci Med 1996; 42(5): 733–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Andersen, R, Newman, J. Societal and individual determinants of medical health care utilisation in the United States. Millbank Q 1972; 51: 95–124.Google Scholar
20.Phillips, KA. Factors associated with voluntary HIV testing for African-Americans and Hispanics. Aids Educ Prev 1993; 5(2): 95–103.Google ScholarPubMed
21.Kalichman, SC, Somalai, A, Adair, V. Psychological factors in HIV testing among STD clinic patients: an exploratory study. Psychology and Health 1996; 11: 593–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Crisp, BR, Barber, JG. The effect of locus of control on the association between risk perception and sexual risk taking. Personality and Individual Differences 1995; 19(6): 841–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Kelly, JA, St.Lawerence, JS, Brasfield, TL, Lemke, A, Amidei, T, Roffman, RE. Psychological factors that predict AIDS high risk versus AIDS precautionary behaviour. J Consult Clin Psychol 1990; 58(1): 117–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Jones, JL, Hutto, P, Meyer, P, Dowda, H, Gamble, WB, Gunn, RA. HIV seroprevalence and reasons for refusing and accepting HIV testing. Sex Transm Dis 1993; 20: 334–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Simon, PA, Weber, M, Ford, WL, Cheng, F, Kerndt, PR. Reasons for HIV antibody test refusal in a heterosexual sexually transmitted disease clinic population. AIDS 1996; 10: 1549–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Van der Pligt, J, Otten, W, Richard, R. Perceived risk of AIDS: unrealistic optimism and self-protective action. In: Pryor, R, Reeder, D, eds. Social Psychology of HIV infection. Lawrence, Erlbaum Associates, 1993: 39–58.Google Scholar
27.Weinstein, ND. Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems. J Behav Med 1982; 5: 441–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Weinstein, ND. Perceptions of personal susceptibility to harm. In: Mays, V, Albee, GW, eds. Primary Prevention of AIDS. Sage Publications, 1989: 142–67.Google Scholar
29.Van der Velde, FW, Van der Hooykaas, C. Risk perception and behaviour: pessimism, realism, and optimism about AIDS-related health behaviour. Psychology and Health 1992; 6: 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Miller, WR, Rollnick, S. Motivational Interviewing : preparing people to change addictive behaviour. Guildford Press: New York, 1991.Google Scholar
31.Prochaska, JO, DiClemente, CC. The transtheoretical approach: crossing traditional boundaries of change. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press, 1984.Google Scholar
32.Munday, PE, Mullan, HM. Encouraging HIV testing in GUM clinics — can we dispense with the pre-test discussion? Int J STD AIDS 1999; 10: 728–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Gigerenzer, G, Hoffrage, U, Ebert, A. AIDS counselling for low risk clients. AIDS Care 1998; 10: 197–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Kalichman, SC, Coley, B. Context framing to enhance HIV-antibody-testing messages targeted to African American women. Health Psychol 1995; 14(3): 247–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35.Kahneman, D, Tversky, A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979; 47(2): 263–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36.Valdiserri, RO, Holtgrave, DR, Brackbill, RM. American adults knowledge of HIV testing availability. Am J Public Health 1993; 83(4): 525–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37.Hudson, MMT, Nelson, WL, Ronalds, CJ, Anderson, J, Jeffries, DJ. HIV antibody testing: Genito-Urinary Clinic or additional site same-day testing service. AIDS Care 1997; 9(2): 209–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38.Kassler, WJ, Dillon, BA, Haley, C. On-site, rapid HIV testing with same day results and counselling. AIDS 1997; 11(8): 1045–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39.SCIEH Weekly Report, Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health, 23 Feb 1999; 33: No. 99/08.Google Scholar