CDC HIV prevention indicators

Monitoring and evaluating HIV prevention in the USA

Deborah L. Rugg, Janet L. Heitgerd, David A. Cotton, Stephanie Broyles, Anne Freeman, Ana Maria Lopez-Gomez, Niki U. Cotten-Oldenburg, Kimberly Page-Shafer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: This study selected and field tested indicators to track changes in HIV prevention effectiveness in the USA. Methods: During 1996-1999, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention held two 2 day expert consultations with more than 80 national, state and local experts. A consensus-driven, evidence-based approach was used to select 70 indicators, which had to be derived from existing data, available in more than 25 states, and meaningful to state health officials in monitoring HIV. A literature review was performed for each indicator to determine general relevance, validity, and reliability. Two field tests in five US sites determined accessibility, feasibility, and usefulness. Results: The final 37 core indicators represent four categories: biological, behavioral, services, and socio-political. Specific indicators reflect the epidemic and associated risk factors for men who have sex with men, injection drug users, heterosexuals at high risk, and childbearing women. Conclusions: Despite limitations, the indicators sparked the regular, proactive integration and review of monitoring data, facilitating a more effective use of data in HIV prevention community planning. (C) 2000 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2003-2013
Number of pages11
JournalAIDS
Volume14
Issue number13
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 8 2000

Fingerprint

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.)
HIV
Heterosexuality
Drug Users
Reproducibility of Results
Consensus
Referral and Consultation
Injections
Health

Keywords

  • Evaluation
  • HIV prevention
  • Indicators
  • Monitoring

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Immunology and Allergy
  • Immunology

Cite this

Rugg, D. L., Heitgerd, J. L., Cotton, D. A., Broyles, S., Freeman, A., Lopez-Gomez, A. M., ... Page-Shafer, K. (2000). CDC HIV prevention indicators: Monitoring and evaluating HIV prevention in the USA. AIDS, 14(13), 2003-2013. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002030-200009080-00017

CDC HIV prevention indicators : Monitoring and evaluating HIV prevention in the USA. / Rugg, Deborah L.; Heitgerd, Janet L.; Cotton, David A.; Broyles, Stephanie; Freeman, Anne; Lopez-Gomez, Ana Maria; Cotten-Oldenburg, Niki U.; Page-Shafer, Kimberly.

In: AIDS, Vol. 14, No. 13, 08.09.2000, p. 2003-2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rugg, DL, Heitgerd, JL, Cotton, DA, Broyles, S, Freeman, A, Lopez-Gomez, AM, Cotten-Oldenburg, NU & Page-Shafer, K 2000, 'CDC HIV prevention indicators: Monitoring and evaluating HIV prevention in the USA', AIDS, vol. 14, no. 13, pp. 2003-2013. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002030-200009080-00017
Rugg DL, Heitgerd JL, Cotton DA, Broyles S, Freeman A, Lopez-Gomez AM et al. CDC HIV prevention indicators: Monitoring and evaluating HIV prevention in the USA. AIDS. 2000 Sep 8;14(13):2003-2013. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002030-200009080-00017
Rugg, Deborah L. ; Heitgerd, Janet L. ; Cotton, David A. ; Broyles, Stephanie ; Freeman, Anne ; Lopez-Gomez, Ana Maria ; Cotten-Oldenburg, Niki U. ; Page-Shafer, Kimberly. / CDC HIV prevention indicators : Monitoring and evaluating HIV prevention in the USA. In: AIDS. 2000 ; Vol. 14, No. 13. pp. 2003-2013.
@article{aa3edf8dd2074fdd84473848bea16497,
title = "CDC HIV prevention indicators: Monitoring and evaluating HIV prevention in the USA",
abstract = "Objective: This study selected and field tested indicators to track changes in HIV prevention effectiveness in the USA. Methods: During 1996-1999, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention held two 2 day expert consultations with more than 80 national, state and local experts. A consensus-driven, evidence-based approach was used to select 70 indicators, which had to be derived from existing data, available in more than 25 states, and meaningful to state health officials in monitoring HIV. A literature review was performed for each indicator to determine general relevance, validity, and reliability. Two field tests in five US sites determined accessibility, feasibility, and usefulness. Results: The final 37 core indicators represent four categories: biological, behavioral, services, and socio-political. Specific indicators reflect the epidemic and associated risk factors for men who have sex with men, injection drug users, heterosexuals at high risk, and childbearing women. Conclusions: Despite limitations, the indicators sparked the regular, proactive integration and review of monitoring data, facilitating a more effective use of data in HIV prevention community planning. (C) 2000 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.",
keywords = "Evaluation, HIV prevention, Indicators, Monitoring",
author = "Rugg, {Deborah L.} and Heitgerd, {Janet L.} and Cotton, {David A.} and Stephanie Broyles and Anne Freeman and Lopez-Gomez, {Ana Maria} and Cotten-Oldenburg, {Niki U.} and Kimberly Page-Shafer",
year = "2000",
month = "9",
day = "8",
doi = "10.1097/00002030-200009080-00017",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "2003--2013",
journal = "AIDS",
issn = "0269-9370",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "13",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - CDC HIV prevention indicators

T2 - Monitoring and evaluating HIV prevention in the USA

AU - Rugg, Deborah L.

AU - Heitgerd, Janet L.

AU - Cotton, David A.

AU - Broyles, Stephanie

AU - Freeman, Anne

AU - Lopez-Gomez, Ana Maria

AU - Cotten-Oldenburg, Niki U.

AU - Page-Shafer, Kimberly

PY - 2000/9/8

Y1 - 2000/9/8

N2 - Objective: This study selected and field tested indicators to track changes in HIV prevention effectiveness in the USA. Methods: During 1996-1999, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention held two 2 day expert consultations with more than 80 national, state and local experts. A consensus-driven, evidence-based approach was used to select 70 indicators, which had to be derived from existing data, available in more than 25 states, and meaningful to state health officials in monitoring HIV. A literature review was performed for each indicator to determine general relevance, validity, and reliability. Two field tests in five US sites determined accessibility, feasibility, and usefulness. Results: The final 37 core indicators represent four categories: biological, behavioral, services, and socio-political. Specific indicators reflect the epidemic and associated risk factors for men who have sex with men, injection drug users, heterosexuals at high risk, and childbearing women. Conclusions: Despite limitations, the indicators sparked the regular, proactive integration and review of monitoring data, facilitating a more effective use of data in HIV prevention community planning. (C) 2000 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.

AB - Objective: This study selected and field tested indicators to track changes in HIV prevention effectiveness in the USA. Methods: During 1996-1999, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention held two 2 day expert consultations with more than 80 national, state and local experts. A consensus-driven, evidence-based approach was used to select 70 indicators, which had to be derived from existing data, available in more than 25 states, and meaningful to state health officials in monitoring HIV. A literature review was performed for each indicator to determine general relevance, validity, and reliability. Two field tests in five US sites determined accessibility, feasibility, and usefulness. Results: The final 37 core indicators represent four categories: biological, behavioral, services, and socio-political. Specific indicators reflect the epidemic and associated risk factors for men who have sex with men, injection drug users, heterosexuals at high risk, and childbearing women. Conclusions: Despite limitations, the indicators sparked the regular, proactive integration and review of monitoring data, facilitating a more effective use of data in HIV prevention community planning. (C) 2000 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.

KW - Evaluation

KW - HIV prevention

KW - Indicators

KW - Monitoring

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034622958&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034622958&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00002030-200009080-00017

DO - 10.1097/00002030-200009080-00017

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 2003

EP - 2013

JO - AIDS

JF - AIDS

SN - 0269-9370

IS - 13

ER -