↓ Skip to main content

Would you test for 5000 Shillings? HIV risk and willingness to accept HIV testing in Tanzania

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Would you test for 5000 Shillings? HIV risk and willingness to accept HIV testing in Tanzania
Published in
Health Economics Review, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13561-015-0060-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Ostermann, Derek S. Brown, Axel Mühlbacher, Bernard Njau, Nathan Thielman

Abstract

Despite substantial public health efforts to increase HIV testing, testing rates have plateaued in many countries and rates of repeat testing for those with ongoing risk are low. To inform policies aimed at increasing uptake of HIV testing, we identified characteristics associated with individuals' willingness-to-accept (WTA) an HIV test in a general population sample and among two high-risk populations in Moshi, Tanzania. In total, 721 individuals, including randomly selected community members (N = 402), female barworkers (N = 135), and male Kilimanjaro mountain porters (N = 184), were asked in a double-bounded contingent valuation format if they would test for HIV in exchange for 2000, 5000 or 10,000 Shillings (approximately $1.30, $3.20, and $6.40, respectively). The study was conducted between September 2012 and February 2013. More than one quarter of participants (196; 27 %) stated they would be willing to test for Tanzania Shilling (TSH) 2000, whereas one in seven (98; 13.6 %) required more than TSH 10,000. The average WTA estimate was TSH 4564 (95 % Confidence Interval: TSH 4201 to 4927). Significant variation in WTA estimates by gender, HIV risk factors and other characteristics plausibly reflects variation in individuals' valuations of benefits of and barriers to testing. WTA estimates were higher among males than females. Among males, WTA was nearly one-third lower for those who reported symptoms of HIV than those who did not. Among females, WTA estimates varied with respondents' education, own and partners' HIV testing history, and lifetime reports of transactional sex. For both genders, the most significant association was observed with respondents' perception of the accuracy of the HIV test; those believing HIV tests to be completely accurate were willing to test for approximately one third less than their counterparts. The mean WTA estimates identified in this study suggest that within the study population, incentivized universal HIV testing could potentially identify undiagnosed HIV infections at an incentive cost of $150 per prevalent infection and $1400 per incident infection, with corresponding costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained of $70 for prevalent and $620 for incident HIV infections. The results support the value of information about the accuracy of HIV testing, and suggest that relatively modest amounts of money may be sufficient to incentivize at-risk populations to test.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 79 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 26%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Lecturer 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 24 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 15 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 18%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 26 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 October 2015.
All research outputs
#3,508,004
of 24,960,237 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#64
of 484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,992
of 271,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,960,237 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 271,938 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.