Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29347929›Full record

ReviewBMC international health and human rights2018

The HIV self-testing debate: where do we stand?

Marilou Gagnon, Martin French, Yamilee Hébert

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

3 authors.

Marilou GagnonSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H8M5, Canada. marilou.gagnon@uottawa.ca.
Martin FrenchDepartment of Sociology and Anthropology, Faculty of Arts and Science, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W. Montréal, Ottawa, H3G 1M8, Canada.
Yamilee HébertFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H8M5, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Self CareCounselingHIV InfectionsHumansMass ScreeningReagent Kits, DiagnosticReagent Kits, DiagnosticAIDSArgumentsDebateHIVHome testSelf-testSelf-testing

Identifiers

PMID29347929
PMCPMC5774103

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.