RT Journal
A1 Nakashima AK, Horsley R, Frey RL, Sweeney PA, Weber J, Fleming PL
T1 DIscoveries
JF JAMA
JO JAMA
YR 1999
FD April 21
VO 281
IS 15
SP 1377
OP 1380
DO 10-1001/pubs.JAMA-ISSN-0098-7484-281-15-jbk0421
UL http://dx.doi.org/10-1001/pubs.JAMA-ISSN-0098-7484-281-15-jbk0421
AB 
In Reply: We considered and rejected
using comparison states as suggested by Ms Aragón and Dr Myers
because each state's HIV counseling and testing program has unique
policies for site selection, funding, training of counselors, and
recommendations to clients. Each state served as its own "control"
before and after reporting was implemented. Selection of a comparable
period for comparison states would also be difficult. The 6 states in
our study were chosen because they had counseling and testing data
available before and after implementation of HIV reporting policies. Of
the 21 other states with HIV reporting policies for adults and
adolescents at the end of 1997,1 20 had implemented these
policies before or soon after the HIV
counseling and testing data system was begun,
and 1 (Florida) began HIV reporting very recently and not enough time
has elapsed to have adequate data for analysis. The year-to-year median
percentage changes in total number of HIV tests during 1992 through
1996 for areas with and without HIV reporting were similar in magnitude
and trend.2