Koester Kimberly A, Maiorana Andre, Vernon Karen, Charlebois Edwin, Gaffney Stuart, Lane Tim, Morin Stephen F
Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA.
Health Policy. 2006 Aug 22;78(1):101-10. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.09.006. Epub 2005 Oct 26.
In 2002, California adopted a non-name system for HIV case reporting. This study focused on the acceptability of a non-name reporting system among key stakeholders implementing the system. We conducted qualitative research during the pre- and post-implementation period of the non-name HIV reporting regulations. During both study periods we conducted key informant in-depth interviews (n = 48 and 52, respectively) with health department surveillance staff, laboratory personnel, health care providers and clinic staff; and we conducted four focus group discussions (n = 28 and 30, respectively) with representatives of community-planning group members and advocacy groups. We found that overall, California's non-name HIV reporting regulations were acceptable to most key stakeholders. Acceptability of a non-name system was highest among advocates and healthcare providers. Views of health department staff varied across the four counties, with some expressing a strong preference of a names based system and others accepting the non-name system.
2002年，加利福尼亚州采用了艾滋病病毒病例非实名报告制度。本研究聚焦于实施该制度的关键利益相关者对非实名报告制度的接受程度。我们在艾滋病病毒非实名报告规定实施前和实施后阶段开展了定性研究。在两个研究阶段，我们分别与卫生部门监测人员、实验室人员、医疗服务提供者及诊所工作人员进行了关键信息人深度访谈（分别为48人和52人）；并与社区规划小组成员及倡导团体的代表进行了四次焦点小组讨论（分别为28人和30人）。我们发现，总体而言，加利福尼亚州的艾滋病病毒非实名报告规定为大多数关键利益相关者所接受。倡导者和医疗服务提供者对非实名制度的接受度最高。四个县的卫生部门工作人员观点不一，一些人强烈倾向于基于实名的制度，另一些人则接受非实名制度。
