I try to get an HIV test annually, but i realized it had been far longer than that and i felt guilty. I wasn’t actually anxious or concerned as i haven’t really been dating. Yet, ever since i started doing AIDS education in the 9th grade, i’ve felt that it is my sexual duty to get this test annually, just as it’s my civic duty to vote. So, i phoned up the AIDS Health Project Service Center and scheduled an anonymous appointment.
The last test that i had was an oral swab; this test was a finger prick. The results come back in 20 minutes so you spend the time in between talking about why you got tested. I tried to tell the guy that i wasn’t worried and that i was only doing the test because i believed in doing the test. Annually. I told them that i believed in treating it like a ritual, something you did to protect you and those you love. I think i confused the poor guy. I realize that most of the people he deals with are not in that stage.
So, instead, we talked about the role of meth in SF, the increase in STDs, etc. We talked about what it meant to be a part of a community where testing was ritual, while risk was (relatively) low. I found out that the finger prick test was because Glide kept having people come in anonymously, get tested and the test would turn up positive but they would never return to get their results. They hoped that this would help them help people be more informed. I was quite thankful for it because i hate having to go back.
I wonder if younger people still have the philosophy that you should get tested annually. I’m very thankful that i grew up with that assumption. Besides, it brings relief to confirm that i’m still negative.
I can see why you would do this but if you really think there is no reason you would be at risk (and you would know!) then aren’t you using health resources others might need more? Or did you pay for it? What does an AIDS test cost anyway?
Also, I am wary of this “we are all potentially unsafe” message – there is enough fear in this world already. By all means get tested regularly if you are at some risk but should I really do the same even though I have absolute confidence in the fidelity of my wife who has been my only sexual partner for the last 4 years?
Most HIV tests these days are by donation.
I am low-risk, not no-risk and certainly not as low-risk as you. I’m just not high-risk like many of my fellow San Franciscans.
I actually have far more fear in doing my annual pap (because of cervical cancer, which seems to be rather common in my group). I don’t believe that an annual HIV test is promoting fear, but responsibility. With responsibility means no doubt and it means no fear and no guilt. It’s a responsible action, not a fearful one.
papilloma viruses probably cause cervical cancer: it is interesting that the prior research on elderly women, stated that women over the age of 65 that are in a stable relationship, do not need to undergo screening after three consecutive neg paps.
but the baby boomers and those living after the introduction of the “pill” may be a different subset and may require a different approach to screening due to changing attitudes regarding sex and change in sexual behaviors. Remember, the tests have a sensitivity and a specificity, which is influenced by the prevalance of an illness.
So if one is high risk, the prevalance increases: this changes everything in how we interpret the tests, and even configure the pathologic reporting: so if prevalance is higher, a borderline test result may be skewed over to the positive section, or if the prevalance is low, then we move the result over to the negative section.
So with pap tests, we will need to change policies as our baby boomers get older. Now in terms of a HIV test to raise community acceptance towards reducing the social stigma of getting a test done, that is admirable: but i am sure you understand that a yearly test of someone who is low risk, creates the posibility of a false positive. This could be nerve racking. The easy 20 min tests, by their virtue, are less specific, but more sensitive to bring in those who have a real disease. Hopefully this is part of the disclosure of pre testing to prevent mis-communication.
The severity of a false positive requires counsling services to be made available on a 24 hr basis: a mis-understood false positive can create a severe psychologic reaction in a person. A false negative can create continued carelessness.
your “Glogging” of how things are done, should be a sampling of the institution you are dealing with and if things need improving. You may uncover a trend in California to cut social support systems: this may not be evident in the university setting, but may be prevalent in nearby Oakland.
Cuts in HIV support services
Could one develop systems of anonymous blogging that will allow persons to understand these labortory tests? already, i hear Liz Lawley and yourself are configuring MT templates towards developing privacy channels for grading in University systems. This could be used for a HIV public information blog that can be extended from Alex Halavais’s ideas in terms of diabetes management via blogging.
stef
I’m at the start of a new relationship and we decided we would go and get tested together. We are both broke so we went to the free clinic. We had to wait 5 hours. This is in Richmond, Virginia. My girlfriend suggested we get up at 7 AM and get there when the doors open, but for some insane reason I thought we could go later if we wanted. We got there at 10 AM and there was a very long line in front of us. The nurses were very nice and professional, though some of the support staff were irritable and clearly feeling the pressure of having to deal with too large a crowd. There was a television in the room and the staff kept playing informational videos, some of which were quite good, though all of them sort of preaching to the choir – after all, the people were already there, getting screened. Most of the crowd was black, but not completely. My partner and I got tested for everything yet, strangely, the place did not test for herpes. They tested for everything but that. We thought that was very strange. No doubt there is some kind of funding issue that prevents them from offering that test, but if the point of the free clinic is to make it easy for people to find out what they have, thus hopefully heading off epidemics, then not funding the test for herpes leaves a rather large hole in the safety net. There was literature on a table about all the STDs, including herpes, and the pamphlet on herpes said 20% of the adult population already had it. So it is a big epidemic. I imagine it is the most widespread among the poor, the very people most likely to need the services of a free clinic.
We went to Planned Parenthood the next day, which offers a herpes test, but it cost $89 for the test. Ouch.
i guess standing in line is anonymous…
I got tested about six months ago for the first time, finger prick style. The guy who did my test basically said, “Why the hell are you getting this test?” and I said “Because I’ve had unprotected sex in the past, and I want to again with a partner I hope to keep.” He asked about my partners and was basically like, “you have basically zero to worry about but we’ll do the test anyway of course.” I was struck by his attitude; I mean, what if it had been positive? Does he say that to all the girls? I was at a clinic that caters primarily to the Boston gay community, but still, I wasn’t a virgin or anything. He turned out to be right, but what happens to the woman who was unlucky with her old boyfriend, in a similar situation to mine? What if my old boyfriend had a secret drug problem, or something? I shudder to think.
As for yearly testing, it never occurred to me that it should be like a pap smear (which I always do). Interesting.
At my final HIV test I was given the option of calling for test results. It was a weird mix of ease-of-use and utter irrationality: you could call for your results, but poz results would not be given over the phone. I think they instituted it for roughly the same reason that you got the 20-minute pin-prick; problems with people not coming back for results. Apparently the no-show rate for results is high in general and even higher for presumptive positive results. I’m not sure how the phone-in solution helps this that much, but probably just getting the person on the phone does help the rate.
Also, in terms of an earlier comment about HIV test costs, the commercial kits are $40 each. That’s probably the (high) upper bound on how much it costs in a clinic setting.
At my final HIV test I was given the option of calling for test results. It was a weird mix of ease-of-use and utter irrationality: you could call for your results, but poz results would not be given over the phone. I think they instituted it for roughly the same reason that you got the 20-minute pin-prick; problems with people not coming back for results. Apparently the no-show rate for results is high in general and even higher for presumptive positive results. I’m not sure how the phone-in solution helps this that much, but probably just getting the person on the phone does help the rate.
Also, in terms of an earlier comment about HIV test costs, the commercial kits are $40 each. That’s probably the (high) upper bound on how much it costs in a clinic setting.
At my final HIV test I was given the option of calling for test results. It was a weird mix of ease-of-use and utter irrationality: you could call for your results, but poz results would not be given over the phone. I think they instituted it for roughly the same reason that you got the 20-minute pin-prick; problems with people not coming back for results. Apparently the no-show rate for results is high in general and even higher for presumptive positive results. I’m not sure how the phone-in solution helps this that much, but probably just getting the person on the phone does help the rate.
Also, in terms of an earlier comment about HIV test costs, the commercial kits are $40 each. That’s probably the (high) upper bound on how much it costs in a clinic setting.
i suppose it’s a good idea(getting tested annually) but I would still freak out(I’m nervous by nature). danah, why do so many of us have trouble(nothing against mark,I’ve done it myself)and end up double listing our messages? Are we doing something wrong(probably)?
Tony – the problem is that i have a million entries and it takes forever to process. Matters are made worse by the fact that my server only lets me take up so much of its processing cycles. So lots of people push the post button again out of frustration and it crashes to a halt and double posts.
Honestly, it sucks, but i haven’t had time to upgrade this blog or fix anything; it’s hard enough keeping the spam off. I know that there are ways to make this work, but i haven’t had the energy or patience. I’d love for all of my blogging nightmares to disappear, but they haven’t yet and i just haven’t had the headspace to cope. Sorry.
danah- don’t worry about changing anything-you’re working hard enough.Just my probing nature(I figured your server was the reason and spam is damning).You’re doing great-don’t fret, problems are human and it just shows how deeply people want to get ideas to you(interesting how similiar to pigeons we are-pecking away in times of uncertainty,”Did it post?”) Just chuckle and bear it.
Sadly I don’t think the youth in the UK has the philosophy that you should get tested annually…
Last week’s backed-up aggregate.
Boing Boing’s “Zuckerman: Wikipedia needs to cover non-nerdy subjects”Edward Wyatt’s “Treasury Being Sued for Curbs on Editing”Verlyn Klinkenborg’s “The Wealth of the Season”Michiko Kakutani’s “‘Chain of Command’: Controversial Reports Become Accepted …
Last week’s backed-up aggregate.
Boing Boing’s “Zuckerman: Wikipedia needs to cover non-nerdy subjects”Edward Wyatt’s “Treasury Being Sued for Curbs on Editing”Verlyn Klinkenborg’s “The Wealth of the Season”Michiko Kakutani’s “‘Chain of Command’: Controversial Reports Become Accepted …