Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
HIV prevalence estimates from bathhouse testing programmes differ widely, ranging from 3% to 11%. The observed difference may be a consequence of whether the programme was part of a research project or a community-based programme. A research-funded testing programme was offered at a bathhouse between May 2001 and December 2002. A local community-based organization began a testing programme in July 2006 at the same bathhouse; the data for this analysis cover the period July 2006 through December 2007. County-wide HIV prevalence estimates were available across the two time periods (i.e. 2001-2002 and 2006-2007). The research-funded testing programme recruited fewer men but identified more positive individuals (10.7% of those testing in the research programme) than were identified among men who tested in the area clinics (3.8% of those men who have sex with men [MSM] testing throughout the county in the same time period). However, the community-based testing programme identified about the same proportion of positive MSM (2.6%) as county clinics (2.7%) in the same time period. In conclusion, results confirmed that even in the same venue, a community-based HIV testing programme identified a similar proportion of positive MSM as the area clinics; however, the research-funded programme identified appreciably more. Incentives may contribute to the difference.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Woods et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: