The HIV Pandemic in Sweden: What do people Really think about Mandatory HIV Testing?

Abstract

This study examines (1) how the general population of Sweden defines the concept of mandatory HIV testing; (2) what measures people consider should be taken against HIV infected individuals if mandatory testing is introduced; and (3) how the opinion of mandatory testing is affected if people consider the matter from a personal rather than neutral point of view. The two first questions were investigated in personal interviews with 1651 randomly selected individuals aged 16–74 years (Study 1). The third question was investigated in an experimental study among Swedish college/university students (Study 2). A total of 58% of the respondents in Study 1 favoured mandatory HIV testing. Confronted with a situation where mandatory testing is introduced and someone refuses to take a test 40% favoured forced testing and 24% favoured fines. If someone is identified as being HIV infected three out of four recommended action only in case this person exposes others to risk. In Study 2 mandatory testing was not, as could be expected, considered to be more repellent if the issue was viewed from a personal point of view than from a neutral one.

Keywords

HIV testing AIDS mandatory voluntary general population students

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Mauer GL . AIDS testing. AIDS & Public Policy Journal 1987; 2: 1–2.

2. Fluss SS , Latto DK . The coercive element in legislation for the control of AIDS and HIV infection: some recent developments. AIDS & Public Policy Journal 1987; 2: 11–20.

3. Herlizt C , Brorsson B . HIV testing in 25% of the Swedish population aged 16–44. Lancet 1989; ii: 386–7.

4. Riksrevisionsverket. Informationskampanjen om HIV/AIDS – samhällsinformation som styrmedel. Riksrevisionsverket, Stockholm. Stockholm 1989.

5. Herlitz C , Brorsson B . AIDS in the minds of Swedish people. AIDS 1990; 4: 1011–8.

6. Nowak L. Fyra frågor om AIDS. SR publik-och programforskning, Stockholm. Stockholm 1987 (mimeo).

7. Brorsson B , Herlitz C . The AIDS epidemic in Sweden: changes in awareness, attitudes and behavior. Scand J Soc Med 1988; 16: 67–71.

8. Weinstein ND . Why it won't happen to me: perceptions of risk factors and susceptibility. Health Psychology 1984; 3: 431–57.

9. Svenson O . Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers? Acta Phychol Scand 1981; 47: 143–8.

10.

10. Larwood L . Swine flu: a field study of self-serving biases. J Appl Psychol 1987; 8: 283–9.

11.

11. Herlitz C , Brorsson B , The AIDS epidemic in Sweden: estimates of costs, 1986, 1987 and 1990. Scand J Soc Med 1989; 17: 39–48.

12.

12. Brorsson B . Allmänheten och HIV/AIDS. Institutionen för socialmedicin, Uppsala. Borlänge, 1989.

13.

13. Nowak L. Efter två år – en upprepning av fyra frågor om AIDS. SR publik-och programforskning, Stockholm 1989.

14.

14. Gostin LO , Curran WJ , Clark ME . The case against compulsory casefinding in controlling AIDS – testing, screening and reporting. Am J Law Med 1987; 12: 7–53.

15.

15. Bayer R. Levine C , Wolf SM . HIV antibody screening: an ethical framework for evaluating proposed programs. JAMA 1986; 256: 1764–74.

16.

16. Childress JF . An ethical framework for assessing policies to screen for antibodies to HIV. AIDS & Public Policy Journal 1987; 2: 28–31.

17.

17. Miike L. AIDS antibody testing. Office of Technology Assessment, Washington D. C., Washington 1987 (mimeo).

18.

18. Giesecke J , Ramstedt K , Ripa T , Rådö G , Scalia-Tomba G , Westrell M . Kontaktspårning vid HIV – redovisning från en pågående svensk multicenterstudie. J Swed Med Soc 1989; 86: 4026–30.

19.

19. Statens Bakteriologiska Laboratorium. EPID aktuellt 1990; 13: 7–8.