Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29194120›Full record

SynthesisAIDS (London, England)2018

Experiences using and organizing HIV self-testing.

Yilu Qin, Larry Han, Andrew Babbitt, Jennifer S Walker, Fengying Liu, Harsha Thirumurthy, Weiming Tang, Joseph D Tucker

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in AIDS (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  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

8 authors.

Yilu QinUniversity of North Carolina Project-China, Guangzhou, China.
Larry HanUniversity of North Carolina Project-China, Guangzhou, China.
Andrew BabbittUniversity of North Carolina Project-China, Guangzhou, China.
Jennifer S WalkerUniversity of North Carolina Health Sciences Library, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Fengying LiuGuangdong Provincial Centre for Skin Diseases and STI Control (Southern Medical University Dermatology Hospital), Guangzhou, China.
Harsha ThirumurthyDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Weiming TangUniversity of North Carolina Project-China, Guangzhou, China.
Joseph D TuckerUniversity of North Carolina Project-China, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

Virology, Immunology, and Microbiology CoreP30AI050410 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI DAVID M. MARGOLIS · 2001 to 2026
$76.9M
Research Services CoreP2CHD050924 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI KAREN B GUZZO · 2015 to 2026
$9.6M
Spurring Innovation in HIV Testing and Linkage: A Crowdsourcing Approach -Diversity SupplementR01AI114310 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI TUCKER, JOSEPH DAVID, WEI, CHONGYI · 2014 to 2018
$3.3M
UNC-South China STD Research Training CenterD43TW009532 · FIC · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI COHEN, MYRON SCOTT, TUCKER, JOSEPH DAVID · 2013 to 2017
$1.3M
FIC NIH HHS D43 TW009532NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI050410NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI114310NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD050924
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveHIV self-testing (HIVST) is now officially recommended by the WHO, yet much of HIVST evidence to date has focused on quantitative data and hypothetical concerns. Effective scale-up of HIVST in diverse local contexts requires qualitative data from experiences using and organizing HIVST. This qualitative systematic review aims to appraise and synthesize research evidence on experiences using and organizing HIVST.

methodsWe conducted a systematic search of seven primary literature databases, four gray literature sources, and reference lists reporting qualitative evidence on HIVST. Data extraction and thematic analysis were used to synthesize findings. Quality of studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Confidence in review findings was evaluated using the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research approach. The review protocol was registered (CRD42015027607).

resultsFrom 1266 potential articles, we included 18. Four studies were conducted in low-income countries, three in middle-income countries, 10 in high-income countries, and one in multiple countries. Generally, HIVST increased capacity to reach priority populations and expanded opportunities for service delivery. Self-testing was preferred to facility-based testing due to increased convenience and confidentiality, especially among stigmatized populations. HIVST decreased test-associated stigma compared with facility-based testing. HIVST generally empowered people because it provided greater control over individual testing needs. At the same time, HIVST rarely allowed husbands to coerce their wives to test.

conclusionsThis review suggests that HIVST should be offered as an additional HIV testing option to expand testing and empower testers. Adapting national policies to incorporate HIVST will be necessary to guide scale-up.

Indexed as

Health Services ResearchAdolescentAdultAgedDiagnostic Tests, RoutineFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPregnancySelf AdministrationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29194120
PMCPMC5758403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.