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

Monica L Kasting, Anthony D Cox, Dena Cox, Kenneth H Fife, Barry P Katz, Gregory D Zimet, Monica L Kasting, Anthony D Cox, Dena Cox, Kenneth H Fife, Barry P Katz, Gregory D Zimet

Abstract

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.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of the study.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Moderating effect of perceived obstacles by test acceptance. *Significant difference in HIV test acceptance between Low and High Perceived Obstacles groups (P = .001).

References

    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Monitoring Selected National HIV Prevention and Care Objectives by Using HIV Surveillance Data – United States and 6 U.S. Dependent Areas – 2010. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report 2012, 17(No. 3). []. Accessed June 25, 2012.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: HIV Testing Trends in the United States, 2000–2011. []. Accessed June 15, 2013.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Number of persons tested for HIV – United States, 2002. MMWR. 2004;53:1110–1113.
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Healthy People 2020. Washington, DC: []. Accessed December 26, 2013.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: HIV/AIDS Testing. []. Accessed December 26, 2013.
    1. Smith KM, Putstein SE, Powers KA, Fidler S, Miller WC, Eron JJ, Cohen MS. The detection and management of early HIV infection: a clinical and public health emergency. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;63:S187–S199. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e31829871e0.
    1. Crowley A, Hoyer W. An integrative framework for understanding two-side persuasion. J Consum Res. 1994;20:561–574. doi: 10.1086/209370.
    1. Hovland C, Lumsdaine A, Sheffield F. Experiments in Mass Communication. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1949.
    1. Eagly A, Chaiken S. The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers; 1993.
    1. Belch GE. An examination of comparative and noncomparative television commercials: the effects of claim variation and repetition on cognitive response and message acceptance. J Market Res. 1981;18:222–249. doi: 10.2307/3150974.
    1. Kamins MA, Assael H. Two-sided versus one-sided appeals: a cognitive perspective on argumentation, source derogation, and the effect of disconfirming trial on belief change. J Market Res. 1987;24:29–39. doi: 10.2307/3151751.
    1. Swinyard WR. The interaction between comparative advertising and copy claim variation. J Market Res. 1981;18:175–186. doi: 10.2307/3150952.
    1. Lunny C, Shearer B, Cruikshank J, Thomas K, Smith A. Women in HIV conference research: trends and content analysis of abstracts presented at 17 HIV/AIDS conferences from 2003 to 2010. Women’s Health Issues. 2011;21:407–417. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2011.06.009.
    1. Mays RM, Sturm LA, Rasche JC, Cox DS, Cox AD, Zimet GD. Use of drawings to explore U.S. women’s perspectives on why people might decline HIV testing. Health Care Women Int. 2011;32:328–343. doi: 10.1080/07399332.2010.510585.
    1. Zimet GD, Liau A, Fortenberry JD. Health beliefs and intention to get immunized for HIV. J Adolesc Health. 1997;20:354–359. doi: 10.1016/S1054-139X(97)00031-1.
    1. Zimet GD, Rosenthal SL, Fortenberry JD, Brady RC, Tu W, Wu J, Bernstein DI, Stanberry LR, Stone KM, Leichliter JS, Fife KH. Factors predicting the acceptance of herpes simplex virus type 2 antibody testing among adolescents and young adults. Sex Transm Dis. 2004;31:665–669. doi: 10.1097/01.olq.0000143089.77493.c2.
    1. Zimet GD, Perkins SM, Winston Y, Kee R. Predictors of first and second dose acceptance of hepatitis B vaccine among STD clinic patients. Int J STD AIDS. 2008;19:246–250. doi: 10.1258/ijsa.2007.007136.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults, adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care settings. MMWR. 2006;55:1–17.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: No Matter Who You Are, This Test is for You. June 2010. []. Accessed February 10, 2014.
    1. Department of Veterans Affairs: Get Checked, Just to be Sure. March 2010. []. Accessed February 10, 2014.
    1. Michigan Department of Community Health: What You Need to Know About HIV Testing. May 2010. []. Accessed February 10, 2014.
    1. New York City Department of Health: What You Need to Know about an HIV Test: Anybody can get HIV. []. Accessed February 10, 2014.
    1. Finney LJ, Iannotti RJ. Message framing and mammography screening: a theory-driven intervention. Behav Med. 2002;28:5–14. doi: 10.1080/08964280209596393.
    1. Cox A, Cox D. Communicating the consequences of early detection: the role of evidence and framing. J Mark. 2001;65:91–103. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.65.3.91.18336.
    1. Chang C. Men’s and women’s responses to two-sided health news coverage: a moderated mediation model. J Health Commun. 2013;18:1326–1344. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2013.778363.
    1. Grover KW, Miller CT. Effects of mortality salience and perceived vulnerability on HIV testing intentions and behaviour. Psychol Health. 2014;29:475–490. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2013.866672.
    1. Lopez LM, Tolley EE, Grimes DA, Chen M, Stockton LL. Theory-based interventions for contraception (Review) Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;8:CD007249.
    1. Wingood GM, DiClemente RJ, Robinson-Simpson L, Lang DL, Caliendo A, Hardin JW. Efficacy of an HIV intervention in reducing high-risk HPV, non-viral STIs, and concurrency among African-American Women: a randomized controlled trial. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;63:S36. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3182920031.

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi