IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/20009071096-1099_2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A participant observation study using actors at 30 publicly funded HIV counseling and testing sites in Pennsylvania

Author

Listed:
  • Silvestre, A.J.
  • Gehl, M.B.
  • Encandela, J.
  • Schelzel, G.

Abstract

Objectives. This study was designed to augment an evaluation of Pennsylvania publicly funded HIV counseling and testing sites, particularly of the staff-client interaction. Methods. Actors were trained as research assistants and sent to 30 randomly chosen sites to be tested and counseled for HIV disease. Instruments based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines were designed and used to evaluate them. Results. Data were generated that identified the range of compliance with CDC guidelines and state policy. Among the findings were that 10 of 30 sites required signed consents despite a state policy allowing anonymous testing. Only 17% of providers developed a written risk reduction plan, even though 69% of all sites surveyed by mail asserted that such plans were developed. Only 2 of 5 HIV-positive actors were offered partner notification services, even though 100% of sites visited by an interviewer claimed to offer such services. Conclusions. The findings suggest that although evaluation methods such as mail surveys and site visits are useful for evaluating the existence of appropriate policies and protocols and gathering baseline data, they might not be sufficient for assessing actual staff-client interaction.

Suggested Citation

  • Silvestre, A.J. & Gehl, M.B. & Encandela, J. & Schelzel, G., 2000. "A participant observation study using actors at 30 publicly funded HIV counseling and testing sites in Pennsylvania," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 90(7), pages 1096-1099.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:2000:90:7:1096-1099_2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:2000:90:7:1096-1099_2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.