ArticlePloS one2016
HIV Self-Testing among Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) in the UK: A Qualitative Study of Barriers and Facilitators, Intervention Preferences and Perceived Impacts.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
58 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 110 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the effects of HIV self-testing to standard HIV testing for key populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Understanding experiences of potential harm among MSM (cis and trans) using HIV self-testing in the SELPHI randomised controlled trial in England and Wales: a mixed-methods study.Sexually transmitted infections · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Preferences, beliefs, and attitudes about oral fluid and blood-based HIV self-testing among truck drivers in Kenya choosing not to test for HIV.Frontiers in public health · 2022Trial
- Sustaining success: a qualitative study of gay and bisexual men's experiences and perceptions of HIV self-testing in a randomized controlled trial.BMC public health · 2021Trial
- Few Aggressive or Violent Incidents are Associated with the Use of HIV Self-tests to Screen Sexual Partners Among Key Populations.AIDS and behavior · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Pilot phase of an internet-based RCT of HIVST targeting MSM and transgender people in England and Wales: advertising strategies and acceptability of the intervention.BMC infectious diseases · 2019Trial
- Trial
- Review
- Inequities in willingness to disclose contact information to access free mpox self-testing kits among MSM in China: a COM-B-informed multi-center study.International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
- Feasibility and acceptability of peer-delivered HIV and syphilis self-test kits and assisted partner notification services for gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men: a qualitative study in Uganda.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Implementation of Home-Based Sexual Health Care Among Men Who Have Sex with Men: Limburg4zero.AIDS and behavior · 2025Article
- Self-sampling and self-testing for HIV at a commercial and community-based test provider in the Netherlands: user preferences and usability.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Standardly Trained Peer Volunteer-Led, Social App Recruiting-Based Human Immunodeficiency Virus Testing Strategy Using Rapid Testing Kits (SPARK) Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: A Population-Based Survey Evaluation.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Needs & networks: understanding the role and impact of social networks on HIV (self-)testing among GBMSM and trans people in England and Wales.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Full title- acceptability and feasibility of HIV self-testing (HIVST) among MSM and transgender women (Heliyon · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionInnovative strategies, such as HIV self-testing (HIVST), could increase HIV testing rates and diagnosis. Evidence to inform the design of an HIVST intervention in the UK is scarce with very little European data on this topic. This study aims to understand values and preferences for HIVST interventions targeting MSM in the UK. We explore the acceptability of HIVST among MSM in the context of known barriers and facilitators to testing for HIV; assess preferences for, and the concerns about, HIVST.
methodsSix focus group discussions (FGD) were conducted with 47 MSM in London, Manchester and Plymouth. HIVST as a concept was discussed and participants were asked to construct their ideal HIVST intervention. OraQuickTM and BioSureTM kits were then demonstrated and participants commented on procedure, design and instructions. FGDs were recorded and transcribed verbatim, then analysed thematically.
resultsConvenience and confidentiality of HIVST was seen to facilitate testing. Issues with domestic privacy problematised confidentiality. HIVST kits and instructions were thought to be unnecessarily complicated, and did not cater to the required range of abilities. The window period was the most important element of an HIVST, with strong preference for 4th generation testing. Kits which used a blood sample were more popular than those using saliva due to higher perceived accuracy although phobia of needles and/or blood meant some would only access HIVST if a saliva sample option was available. A range of access options was important to maintain convenience and privacy. HIVST kits were assumed to increase frequency of testing, with concerns related to the dislocation of HIVST from sexual health care pathways and services. DISCUSSION: Utility of HIVST arises from relatively high levels of confidentiality and convenience. Until 4th generation assays are available HIVST will be seen as supplementary in a UK context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.