Home |
Current Issue |
Past Issues |
In the Clinic |
ACP Journal Club |
CME |
Collections |
Audio/Video |
Mobile |
Subscribe |
Tools |
Help |
ACP Online
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 May 1998 | Volume 128 Issue 9 | Pages 760-767
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 and Article Information
From Abington Memorial Hospital, Abington, Pennsylvania; Allegheny University of the Health Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Columbia University School of Public Health, New York, New York.
MEDICINE AND PUBLIC ISSUES
A Decision Analysis of Mandatory Compared with Voluntary HIV Testing in Pregnant Women
![]()
Acknowledgments: The authors thank Patricia Bankes and Helen Nuskey for assistance in preparation of the manuscript.
Requests for Reprints: David G. Smith, MD, Department of Medicine, 2B Elkins, Abington Memorial Hospital, 1200 Old York Road, Abington, PA 19001.
Current Author Addresses: Dr. Nakchbandi: Department of Medicine/Endocrinology, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, Fitkin 1, New Haven, CT 06520-8020.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
J. Deblonde, P. Claeys, and M. Temmerman Antenatal HIV screening in Europe: a review of policies Eur J Public Health, October 1, 2007; 17(5): 414 - 418. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
U. Schuklenk and A. Kleinsmidt Rethinking Mandatory HIV Testing During Pregnancy in Areas With High HIV Prevalence Rates: Ethical and Policy Issues Am J Public Health, July 1, 2007; 97(7): 1179 - 1183. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Chou, A. K. Smits, L. H. Huffman, R. Fu, and P. T. Korthuis Prenatal Screening for HIV: A Review of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Ann Intern Med, July 5, 2005; 143(1): 38 - 54. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Walmsley Opt in or opt out: What is optimal for prenatal screening for HIV infection? Can. Med. Assoc. J., March 18, 2003; 168(6): 707 - 708. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. G. Anderson and M. M. Anderson HIV Screening and Treatment of Pregnant Women and Their Newborns: A Simulation-Based Analysis SIMULATION, October 1, 1998; 71(4): 276 - 284. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||