A decision analysis of mandatory compared with voluntary HIV testing in pregnant women

Inaam A. Nakchbandi, J. Craig Longenecker, M. Ann Ricksecker, Richard A. Latta, Cheryl Healton, David G. Smith

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: The benefit of antiretroviral therapy in reducing maternal- fetal transmission of HIV during pregnancy has caused a public policy debate about the relative benefits of mandatory HIV screening and voluntary HIV screening in pregnant women. Objective: To evaluate the benefits and risks of mandatory compared with voluntary HIV testing of pregnant women to help guide research and policy. Design: A decision analysis that incorporated the following variables: acceptance and benefit of prenatal care, acceptance and benefit of zidovudine therapy in HIV-infected women, prevalence of HIV infection, and mandatory compared with voluntary HIV testing. Measurements: The threshold deterrence rate (defined as the percentage of women who, if deterred from seeking prenatal care because of a mandatory HIV testing policy, would offset the benefit of zidovudine in reducing vertical HIV transmission) and the difference between a policy of mandatory testing and a policy of voluntary testing in the absolute number of HIV-infected infants or dead infants. Results: Voluntary HIV testing was preferred over a broad range of values in the model. At baseline, the threshold deterrence rate was 0.4%. At a deterrence rate of 0.5%, the number of infants (n = 167) spared HIV infection annually in the United States under a mandatory HIV testing policy would be lower than the number of perinatal deaths (n = 189) caused by lack of prenatal care. Conclusions: The most important variables in the model were voluntary HIV testing, the deterrence rate associated with mandatory testing compared with voluntary testing, and the prevalence of HIV infection in women of childbearing age. At high levels of acceptance of voluntary HIV testing, the benefits of a policy of mandatory testing are minimal and may create the potential harms of avoiding prenatal care to avoid mandatory testing.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)760-767
Number of pages8
JournalAnnals of Internal Medicine
Volume128
Issue number9
StatePublished - May 1 1998

Fingerprint

Decision Support Techniques
Pregnant Women
Mandatory Testing
HIV
Prenatal Care
HIV Infections
Zidovudine
Public Policy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Nakchbandi, I. A., Longenecker, J. C., Ricksecker, M. A., Latta, R. A., Healton, C., & Smith, D. G. (1998). A decision analysis of mandatory compared with voluntary HIV testing in pregnant women. Annals of Internal Medicine, 128(9), 760-767.

A decision analysis of mandatory compared with voluntary HIV testing in pregnant women. / Nakchbandi, Inaam A.; Longenecker, J. Craig; Ricksecker, M. Ann; Latta, Richard A.; Healton, Cheryl; Smith, David G.

In: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 128, No. 9, 01.05.1998, p. 760-767.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Nakchbandi, IA, Longenecker, JC, Ricksecker, MA, Latta, RA, Healton, C & Smith, DG 1998, 'A decision analysis of mandatory compared with voluntary HIV testing in pregnant women', Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 128, no. 9, pp. 760-767.
Nakchbandi IA, Longenecker JC, Ricksecker MA, Latta RA, Healton C, Smith DG. A decision analysis of mandatory compared with voluntary HIV testing in pregnant women. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1998 May 1;128(9):760-767.
Nakchbandi, Inaam A. ; Longenecker, J. Craig ; Ricksecker, M. Ann ; Latta, Richard A. ; Healton, Cheryl ; Smith, David G. / A decision analysis of mandatory compared with voluntary HIV testing in pregnant women. In: Annals of Internal Medicine. 1998 ; Vol. 128, No. 9. pp. 760-767.
@article{212a1ba1db5b4e799ce73fa43eb1e536,
title = "A decision analysis of mandatory compared with voluntary HIV testing in pregnant women",
abstract = "Background: The benefit of antiretroviral therapy in reducing maternal- fetal transmission of HIV during pregnancy has caused a public policy debate about the relative benefits of mandatory HIV screening and voluntary HIV screening in pregnant women. Objective: To evaluate the benefits and risks of mandatory compared with voluntary HIV testing of pregnant women to help guide research and policy. Design: A decision analysis that incorporated the following variables: acceptance and benefit of prenatal care, acceptance and benefit of zidovudine therapy in HIV-infected women, prevalence of HIV infection, and mandatory compared with voluntary HIV testing. Measurements: The threshold deterrence rate (defined as the percentage of women who, if deterred from seeking prenatal care because of a mandatory HIV testing policy, would offset the benefit of zidovudine in reducing vertical HIV transmission) and the difference between a policy of mandatory testing and a policy of voluntary testing in the absolute number of HIV-infected infants or dead infants. Results: Voluntary HIV testing was preferred over a broad range of values in the model. At baseline, the threshold deterrence rate was 0.4{\%}. At a deterrence rate of 0.5{\%}, the number of infants (n = 167) spared HIV infection annually in the United States under a mandatory HIV testing policy would be lower than the number of perinatal deaths (n = 189) caused by lack of prenatal care. Conclusions: The most important variables in the model were voluntary HIV testing, the deterrence rate associated with mandatory testing compared with voluntary testing, and the prevalence of HIV infection in women of childbearing age. At high levels of acceptance of voluntary HIV testing, the benefits of a policy of mandatory testing are minimal and may create the potential harms of avoiding prenatal care to avoid mandatory testing.",
author = "Nakchbandi, {Inaam A.} and Longenecker, {J. Craig} and Ricksecker, {M. Ann} and Latta, {Richard A.} and Cheryl Healton and Smith, {David G.}",
year = "1998",
month = "5",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "128",
pages = "760--767",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "American College of Physicians",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A decision analysis of mandatory compared with voluntary HIV testing in pregnant women

AU - Nakchbandi, Inaam A.

AU - Longenecker, J. Craig

AU - Ricksecker, M. Ann

AU - Latta, Richard A.

AU - Healton, Cheryl

AU - Smith, David G.

PY - 1998/5/1

Y1 - 1998/5/1

N2 - Background: The benefit of antiretroviral therapy in reducing maternal- fetal transmission of HIV during pregnancy has caused a public policy debate about the relative benefits of mandatory HIV screening and voluntary HIV screening in pregnant women. Objective: To evaluate the benefits and risks of mandatory compared with voluntary HIV testing of pregnant women to help guide research and policy. Design: A decision analysis that incorporated the following variables: acceptance and benefit of prenatal care, acceptance and benefit of zidovudine therapy in HIV-infected women, prevalence of HIV infection, and mandatory compared with voluntary HIV testing. Measurements: The threshold deterrence rate (defined as the percentage of women who, if deterred from seeking prenatal care because of a mandatory HIV testing policy, would offset the benefit of zidovudine in reducing vertical HIV transmission) and the difference between a policy of mandatory testing and a policy of voluntary testing in the absolute number of HIV-infected infants or dead infants. Results: Voluntary HIV testing was preferred over a broad range of values in the model. At baseline, the threshold deterrence rate was 0.4%. At a deterrence rate of 0.5%, the number of infants (n = 167) spared HIV infection annually in the United States under a mandatory HIV testing policy would be lower than the number of perinatal deaths (n = 189) caused by lack of prenatal care. Conclusions: The most important variables in the model were voluntary HIV testing, the deterrence rate associated with mandatory testing compared with voluntary testing, and the prevalence of HIV infection in women of childbearing age. At high levels of acceptance of voluntary HIV testing, the benefits of a policy of mandatory testing are minimal and may create the potential harms of avoiding prenatal care to avoid mandatory testing.

AB - Background: The benefit of antiretroviral therapy in reducing maternal- fetal transmission of HIV during pregnancy has caused a public policy debate about the relative benefits of mandatory HIV screening and voluntary HIV screening in pregnant women. Objective: To evaluate the benefits and risks of mandatory compared with voluntary HIV testing of pregnant women to help guide research and policy. Design: A decision analysis that incorporated the following variables: acceptance and benefit of prenatal care, acceptance and benefit of zidovudine therapy in HIV-infected women, prevalence of HIV infection, and mandatory compared with voluntary HIV testing. Measurements: The threshold deterrence rate (defined as the percentage of women who, if deterred from seeking prenatal care because of a mandatory HIV testing policy, would offset the benefit of zidovudine in reducing vertical HIV transmission) and the difference between a policy of mandatory testing and a policy of voluntary testing in the absolute number of HIV-infected infants or dead infants. Results: Voluntary HIV testing was preferred over a broad range of values in the model. At baseline, the threshold deterrence rate was 0.4%. At a deterrence rate of 0.5%, the number of infants (n = 167) spared HIV infection annually in the United States under a mandatory HIV testing policy would be lower than the number of perinatal deaths (n = 189) caused by lack of prenatal care. Conclusions: The most important variables in the model were voluntary HIV testing, the deterrence rate associated with mandatory testing compared with voluntary testing, and the prevalence of HIV infection in women of childbearing age. At high levels of acceptance of voluntary HIV testing, the benefits of a policy of mandatory testing are minimal and may create the potential harms of avoiding prenatal care to avoid mandatory testing.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032079849&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032079849&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 128

SP - 760

EP - 767

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 9

ER -