Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30496260›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2018

A pilot trial of the peer-based distribution of HIV self-test kits among fishermen in Bulisa, Uganda.

Augustine T Choko, Mastula Nanfuka, Josephine Birungi, Geoffrey Taasi, Prossy Kisembo, Stephane Helleringer

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing 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

59 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. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Voluntary HIV Testing and Counselling Initiatives in Occupational Settings: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    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

6 authors.

Augustine T ChokoMalawi- Liverpool Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, Blantyre, Malawi.ORCID 0000-0001-6095-9430
Mastula NanfukaThe AIDS Support Organisation (TASO), Kampala, Uganda.
Josephine BirungiThe AIDS Support Organisation (TASO), Kampala, Uganda.
Geoffrey TaasiMinistry of Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Prossy KisemboThe AIDS Support Organisation (TASO), Kampala, Uganda.
Stephane HelleringerJohn Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.

Funding

Vaccine Response and Immunotherapeutics SWGP30AI094189 · NIAID · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Richard E. Chaisson · 2012 to 2026
$67.0M
Feasibility of measuring HIV-related mortality during population-based surveys in AfricaR21AI127286 · NIAID · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI HELLERINGER, STEPHANE · 2016 to 2017
$378k
NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI094189NIAID NIH HHS R21 AI127286Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 105828/Z/14/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHIV self-testing (HIVST) addresses barriers to HIV diagnosis among men, but current approaches to distributing HIVST kits only reach a subset of the men requiring testing.

methodsWe conducted a pilot trial of the secondary distribution of HIVST kits through peer networks in fishing communities of Buliisa district (Uganda). We recruited distributors ("seeds") among male patients of a health facility, and among community members. Seeds were trained in HIVST and asked to distribute up to five kits to their peers ("recruits"). Recruits were referred to the study using a coupon, and asked to return the HIVST kit (used or unused). The accuracy of HIVST was measured against a confirmatory test conducted by a health worker. We conducted audio computer assisted self-interviews to measure the occurrence of adverse events, and evaluate the potential yield of peer-delivered HIVST. We also assessed how seeds and recruits rated their experience with peer-distributed HIVST.

resultsNineteen seeds offered an HIVST kit to 116 men, and 95 (81.9%) accepted the offer. No recruit reported coercion, but two seeds experienced hostility from recruits or their family members. The sensitivity of peer-distributed HIVST, as interpreted by recruits, was 100%, and its specificity was 92.8%. Among recruits, 29 had never tested (25.8%), and 42 (44.2%) had tested more than a year ago. Three men living with HIV learned their status through peer-distributed HIVST (yield = 1 new diagnosis per 6.3 seeds). Most recruits (85/88) and seeds (19/19) reported that they would recommend HIVST to their friends and family. All seeds stated that they would accept acting as peer distributors again.

conclusionsThis novel peer-based distribution model of HIVST is safe, and has high uptake. It could help reduce the gender gap in HIV testing in under-served fishing communities in Uganda and elsewhere.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultHealth FacilitiesHIV InfectionsHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPeer GroupPilot ProjectsSurveys and QuestionnairesUgandaYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30496260
PMCPMC6264512

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.