Work

HIV Testing Policy and Serious Mental Illness

Year: 2002

Type: article

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: Using opinion data from experts, we examined the context of the argument for mandatory testing of psychiatric patients. METHODS: Vignettes were distributed to experts on HIV and mental illness. Respondents were asked to provide appropriateness ratings for different hypothetical clinical decisions regarding HIV management. RESULTS: Respondents were reluctant to impose testing without informed consent in most circumstances. The presence of risk factors or danger to another increased appropriateness ratings modestly. CONCLUSIONS: Despite experts' tendency to emphasize individual rights, public reluctance to mandate testing is unlikely to extend to people with serious mental illness. No argument for mandatory testing can be persuasive if improved voluntary testing can achieve adequate detection rates. Voluntary testing protocols should be studied to determine which successfully identify infected individuals.

Source: American Journal of Public Health

DOI: 10.2105/ajph.92.12.1931

Authors: James Walkup, James Satriano, Danielle Barry, Pablo Sadler, Francine Cournos

Institutions: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New York State Office of Mental Health, Columbia University

Language: English

Topic: HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions

Subfield: Infectious Diseases

Field: Medicine

Domain: Health Sciences

SDG: Good health and well-being

Open Access status: green

Funders: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health