The Effect of Name-Based Reporting and Partner Notification on HIV Testing in New York State

Tesoriero, James M.; Battles, Haven; Heavner, Karyn; Leung, Suet Yi; Nemeth, Chris; Pulver, W; Birkhead, Guthrie S.

doi:10.2105/ajph.2006.092742

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Once again, this may be related to the change in reporting since 2009. However, research from other countries has shown that name‐based reporting may not be as big of a barrier as sometimes feared . Undocumented data from our testing sites also confirms that only a few people refuse to provide personal data.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Monitoring anonymous HIV testing in Estonia from 2005 to 2015

Kallavus

Tomera

HiE³

2018

HIV Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This analysis reveals that anonymous HIV testing services are well accepted by the general population as well as vulnerable populations. The positivity rate among those tested in anonymous testing sites remains higher than among all people tested, showing that the sites reach more of those who are at higher risk of HIV. In the light of decreasing positivity rate, more attention should be paid to people with higher HIV risk and increasing access to testing in community based settings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Monitoring anonymous HIV testing in Estonia from 2005 to 2015

Kallavus

Tomera

HiE³

2018

HIV Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The enactment of HIV name-based reporting in the late 1990s led to debates over its potential deterrent effect on HIV testing. No deleterious effects were, however, substantiated in research (15, 16). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Criminalization of HIV Exposure: A Review of Empirical Studies in the United States

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review of literature identifies and describes U.S. empirical studies on the criminalization of HIV exposure, examines findings on key questions about these laws, highlights knowledge gaps, and sets a course for future research. Studies published between 1990 and 2014 were identified through key word searches of relevant electronic databases and discussions with experts. Twenty-five empirical studies were identified. Sixteen of these studies used quantitative methods with more than half of these being cross-sectional survey studies. Study samples included male and female HIV-positive persons, HIV-positive and -negative men who have sex with men, public health personnel, and medical providers. Research questions addressed awareness of and attitudes toward HIV exposure laws, potential influences of these laws on seropositive status disclosure for persons living with HIV, HIV testing for HIV-negative persons, safer sex practices for both groups, and associations between HIV exposure laws and HIV-related stigma. Surveys of the laws and studies of enforcement practices were also conducted. Attention should be shifted from examining attitudes about these laws to exploring their potential influence on public health practices and behaviors related to the HIV continuum of care. Studies examining enforcement and prosecution practices are also needed. Adapting a theoretical framework in future research may be useful in better understanding the influence of HIV exposure laws on HIV risk behaviors.

show abstract

“…Some advocates argue that HIV policies in all provinces and territories should include the option of anonymous testing to protect against social stigma and anti-HIV discrimination [53].…”

Section: Anonymity and Confidentialitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, a study of the Partner Counselling and Referral Service (PCRS) program in BC before and after mandatory HIV reporting could not assess any changes due to the lack of systematic collection of PCRS data prior to HIV mandatory reporting [42]. New York's HIV Reporting and Partner Notification law (effective on June 1, 2000) assessed HIV testing rates after controlling for existing trends and seasonality in testing rates, and the results found that post-law changes were not statistically significant [53].…”

Section: Public Health Policy Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%