A qualitative assessment of emergency department patients' knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and acceptance toward revised HIV testing strategies.
A qualitative assessment of emergency department patients' knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and acceptance toward revised HIV testing strategies.
复制标题
对急诊科患者的知识、信念、态度以及对修订后的艾滋病毒检测策略的接受程度进行定性评估。
DOI：
10.1111/acem.12090
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Calderon,Yvette
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cowan,Ethan;Leider,Jason;Velastegui,Lorena;Wexler,Juliana;Velloza,Jennifer;Calderon,Yvette
目的探讨急诊科（EDs）患者对修订后的人类免疫缺陷病毒（HIV）检测建议的知识、信念、态度和可接受性。方法按研究ED的种族、性别和民族组成比例招募受试者。采访者向受试者提供刺激，随后询问有关选择退出同意、取消单独书面同意和减少咨询的问题。三名调查人员使用迭代编码策略对所有转录本进行编码，直到达到主题饱和。结果：共进行了34次半结构化、深入的个人访谈，包括5例13至17岁的患者和5例说西班牙语的患者。19名（56%）参与者是女性。平均（±SD）年龄为31（±12）岁。大多数是西班牙裔（38%）或非洲裔美国人/黑人（44%）。只有一名（2.9%）参与者知道修订后的检测建议。参与者认为选择退出同意会导致测试次数增加，但这被对同意过程的误解所混淆：“所以选择退出是，你基本上没有选择。”参与者认为取消单独的书面同意是一个积极的变化，但这可能导致人们在不知情的情况下接受测试。对减少咨询的态度分歧，但参与者认为患者“应该有选择”咨询，因为“每个人都不一样”。结论急诊科患者不了解修订后的HIV检测建议。大多数人认为选择退出同意和取消单独的书面同意是积极的变化，但可能导致患者在他或她不知情的情况下接受检测。对减少咨询的反应两极分化，但参与者一致认为需要适应个人偏好。当设计基于ED的HIV检测程序时，这些信息可能是有用的。
ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to explore emergency department (EDs) patients' knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and acceptability toward revised human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing recommendations.MethodsParticipants were recruited in proportion to the racial, sex, and ethnic makeup of the study ED. Interviewers presented participants with a stimulus followed by questions about opt‐out consent, elimination of separate written consent, and curtailed counseling. Three investigators coded all transcripts using an iterative coding strategy until thematic saturation was achieved.ResultsThirty‐four semistructured, in‐depth, individual interviews were conducted, including five with patients ages 13 to 17 years and five with Spanish‐speaking patients. Nineteen (56%) participants were women. The mean (±SD) age was 31 (±12) years. Most were Hispanic (38%) or African American/black (44%). Only one (2.9%) participant knew about the revised testing recommendations. Participants believed that opt‐out consent would result in increased testing, but this was confounded by misunderstanding of the consent process: “so the opt‐out is, you basically don't have a choice.” Participants thought eliminating separate written consent was a positive change but that it could result in people being tested without their knowledge. Attitudes diverged over curtailed counseling, but participants felt patients “should have options” for counseling because “everybody isn't the same.”ConclusionsEmergency department patients were unaware of revised HIV testing recommendations. Most felt that opt‐out consent and elimination of separate written consent were positive changes but could result in a patient being tested without his or her knowledge. The response to curtailed counseling was polarized but participants agreed on the need to accommodate personal preferences. This information may be useful when designing ED‐based HIV testing programs.