Pretest HIV Counseling Trial Figure 1. Flow Diagram Legend. * Women who were excluded for ‘‘other reasons’’ included women who initially consented to participate in the study but then changed their mind prior to undergoing the questionnaire. # Women who received the Standard instead of the Abbreviated consent due to nurse ‘‘error’’. @ Women were discontinued from study after pre-test survey completed and they were excluded from the analysis. They were identified as being ineligible only after randomization and administration of pre-test survey. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005166.g001 women supported ‘‘routine’’ HIV testing (‘‘all pregnant women should be given this test’’) as compared to 27% who supported ‘‘elective’’ testing (‘‘only on women who want it and who give their permission to have the test’’). [18] This support for routine prenatal HIV testing was comparable to these women’s attitudes towards routine rubella screening (63%) and routine gonorrhea/ chlamydia screening (77%). While the O’Connor Decisional Conflict Scale has been used in studies evaluating a vast range of health decisions from breast cancer treatment and autologous pre-donation in cardiac surgery to PSA screening, [9,19–25][9,19– 25] we know of only one other study utilizing this scale to assess patient perspectives on HIV testing. [26] In this study of 46 pregnant women undergoing rapid HIV testing on Labor and Delivery at our institution, we found that 89% of the women reported feeling satisfied with their testing experience, and 82.6% of women reported no decisional conflict (score#25) in making decisions for rapid testing, similar to what was seen in this current study. While knowledge scores were statistically significantly lower among women randomized to the abbreviated study arm, knowledge scores were overall high among women in both arms of the trial. The overall high scores were notable and reassuring given the ethnic diversity and low literacy of our clinic population. [27,28] The difference in knowledge scores was driven primarily by PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 4 April 2009 | Volume 4 | Issue 4 | e5166