Data were entered in a specially designed database in Access for Microsoft Office (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, US) and analyzed using Epi Info ™ version 7.1. The outcome was HIV screening (done or not done). Patients not screened were further categorized in “opted out” which included participants that explicitly opted out of HIV screening by saying “no, I do not want to be screened” and in “screening not done for unknown reasons” which included participants that did not explicitly opted out, but either HIV screening was not offered for unknown reasons or despite it being offered, it was not done for unknown reasons. This categorization aimed to compare the characteristics of patients opting-out to those who did not explicitly opted out but screening not done for diverse reasons (patient may not want to be screened but does not say so, or he/she may want but it is not done, because of lack of follow up by the staff or other reasons). The hypothesis underlying this subclassification was that TB patients opting out of HIV screening may have a higher risk of HIV infection and fear of it makes them opt out. While this hypothesis cannot be confirmed in this study, a comparison of patients opting out with those not screened without explicitly opting out, could be relevant. Age was categorized in young adults (18–34 years), adults (35–59 years) and older adults (60–90 years). The 22-months study period was divided in four periods to determine time trends in HIV screening. HIV screening could be different in time if there were screening tests stock outs, or if staff changes in time affected performance related to HIV screening. Socioeconomic status was measured by a Peruvian Ministry of Finance validated scale and categorized patients in poor (including extreme and not extreme poverty) and not poor . Alcohol consumption was measured using the validated CAGE four-question screening test . Those that had a high suspicion of alcoholism we classified as alcoholics.