Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27611777›Full record

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.

T Charles Witzel, Alison J Rodger, Fiona M Burns, Tim Rhodes, Peter Weatherburn

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 110 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

T Charles WitzelSigma Research, Department of Social and Environmental Health Research, Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Alison J RodgerResearch Department of Infection & Population Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Fiona M BurnsResearch Department of Infection & Population Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Tim RhodesDepartment of Social and Environmental Health Research, Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Peter WeatherburnSigma Research, Department of Social and Environmental Health Research, Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity College London · GBEnvironmental Health · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-1212-20006
6 · The paper itself

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

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeQualitative ResearchAdolescentAdultDemographyHIV InfectionsHomosexuality, MaleHumansMaleUnited KingdomYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID27611777
PMCPMC5017738
OpenAlexW2511440381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.