ReviewBMC international health and human rights2018
The HIV self-testing debate: where do we stand?
Review in BMC international health and human rights, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Acceptability and use of HIV self-testing among young people in sub-Saharan Africa: a mixed methods systematic review.BMC primary care · 2024Pooled it
- A systematic review of qualitative evidence on factors enabling and deterring uptake of HIV self-testing in Africa.BMC public health · 2019Pooled it
- Randomized Clinical Trial of Stigma Counseling and HIV Testing Access Interventions to Increase HIV Testing Among Black Sexual Minority Men and Transwomen.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2024Trial
- HIV Self-Testing Increases HIV Testing Frequency in High-Risk Men Who Have Sex With Men: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2018Trial
- A community-based study of intention to use HIV self-testing among young people in urban areas of southern Ethiopia.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Advances in HIV self-testing: Systematic review of current developments and the road ahead in high-burden countries of Africa.SAGE open medicine · 2024Review
- Coerced syphilis self-testing among men who have sex with men: a nationwide cross-sectional study in China.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Assessing Values and Preferences Toward SARS-CoV-2 Self-testing Among the General Population and Their Representatives, Health Care Personnel, and Decision-Makers: Protocol for a Multicountry Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
- Level of knowledge, acceptability, and willingness to use oral fluid HIV self-testing among medical students in Kilimanjaro region, Tanzania: a descriptive cross-sectional study.AIDS research and therapy · 2020Article
- The HIV/AIDS pandemic will not end by the year 2030 in low and middle income countries.The Pan African medical journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmphasis on HIV testing as a gateway to prevention, treatment and care has grown tremendously over the past decade. In turn, this emphasis on testing has created a demand for new policies, programs, and technologies that can potentially increase access to and uptake of HIV testing. HIV self-testing (HST) technologies have gained important momentum following the approval of the over-the-counter self-tests in the United States, the UK, and France. While the renewed interest in HST has given rise to a number of high quality reviews of empirical studies conducted on this topic, we have yet to find an article that captures the extent of the debate on HST. MAPPING THE DEBATE: A critical review of the literature on HST was conducted and organized into three categories based on the focus of the article: 1) Empirical research, 2) Arguments, and 3) Context. We focused exclusively on the second category which included ethical analyses, policy analyses, editorials, opinion pieces, commentaries, letters to the editor and so forth. 10 lines of argument on HST were identified in the literature: 1) Individual - Public Health, 2) Strengths - Limits, 3) Benefits - Harms, 4) Screening - Testing, 5) Target - Market, 6) Health Care - Industry, 7) Regulation - Restriction, 8) Resource-Rich Settings - Resource-Limited Settings, 9) Ethical - Unethical, and 10) Exceptionalism - Normalization. Each line of argument is presented and discussed in the paper.
conclusionWe conclude by providing examples of critical questions that should be raised in order to take the debate to another level and generate new ways of thinking about HST.
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.