Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (24)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McFarland, W.
Right arrow Articles by Katz, M. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by McFarland, W.
Right arrow Articles by Katz, M. H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 142, No. 7: 719-723
Copyright © 1995 by The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health

other

A BREIF ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION

Repeat Negative Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Testing in San Francisco: Magnitude and Characteristics

William McFarland1, Lyn Fischer-Ponce2 and Mitchell H. Katz2,

1Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
2San Francisco Department of Public Health, AIDS Office San Francisco, CA

Dr. Mitchell Katz, San Francisco Department of Public Health, AIDS Office, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102.

The authors assessed the characteristics of repeat human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testers at publicly funded sites in San Francisco. During 1992–1993, 31% of all HIV tests were performed on persons testing negative for the third time or more. Persons with greater numbers of prior negative tests were less likely to test HIV-positive. Repeat negative testers were more likely than first-time negative testers to be homosexual or bisexual males, homosexual or bisexual injection drug users (IDUs), or heterosexual IDUs. Repeat testers who seroconverted were more likely to be in these same transmission categories than repeat testers who remained negative. Because of the similarities in risk profile between those most likely to retest and those most likely to seroconvert, attempts to limit repeat testing must proceed cautiously. Am J Epidemiol 1995;142:719–23.

acquired immunodeficiency virus;; HIV


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.