Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31260480›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Acceptability, feasibility, and individual preferences of blood-based HIV self-testing in a population-based sample of adolescents in Kisangani, Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Serge Tonen-Wolyec, Salomon Batina-Agasa, Jérémie Muwonga, Ralph-Sydney Mboumba Bouassa, Charles Kayembe Tshilumba, Laurent Bélec

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Serge Tonen-WolyecEcole Doctorale Régionale D'Afrique Centrale en Infectiologie Tropicale, Franceville, Gabon.ORCID 0000-0002-7734-7729
Salomon Batina-AgasaFaculté de Médecine et de Pharmacie, Université de Kisangani, Kisangani, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Jérémie MuwongaLaboratoire National de Référence du Sida et des IST, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Ralph-Sydney Mboumba BouassaEcole Doctorale Régionale D'Afrique Centrale en Infectiologie Tropicale, Franceville, Gabon.
Charles Kayembe TshilumbaFaculté de Médecine et de Pharmacie, Université de Kisangani, Kisangani, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Laurent BélecLaboratoire de virologie, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, and Université Paris Descartes, Paris Sorbonne Cité, Paris, France.
Université de Kisangani · CDUniversité Paris Cité · FRCentre International de Recherches Médicales de Franceville · GAProgramme National Multisectoriel de Lutte contre le sida · CD

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdolescents living in sub-Saharan Africa constitute a vulnerable population at significant risk of HIV infection. This study aims to evaluate the acceptability, feasibility, and accuracy of home-based, supervised HIV self-testing (HIVST) as well as their predictors among adolescents living in Kisangani, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

methodsA cross-sectional, door-to-door survey using a blood-based HIV self-test and a peer-based supervised HIVST approach was conducted from July to August 2018 in Kisangani, DRC. The acceptability and feasibility of HIVST were assessed among adolescents' consenting to use and interpret HIV self-test. The accuracy of HIVST was estimated by the sensibility and specificity of adolescent-interpreted HIV self-test. Factors associated with acceptability and feasibility of HIVST were analyzed with logistic regression.

resultsA total of 628 adolescents (including 369 [58.8%] females) aged between 15 and 19 years were enrolled. Acceptability of HIVST was high (95.1%); 96.1% of participants correctly used the self-test, and 65.2% asked for verbal instructions. The majority of adolescents (93.5%) correctly interpreted their self-test results. The Cohen's κ coefficient between the results read by adolescents and by supervisors was 0.62. The correct interpretation decreased significantly when adolescents had no formal education or attended primary school as compared to those currently attending university (37.0% versus 100%; adjusted OR: 0.01 [95% CI: 0.004-0.03]). In the hands of adolescents at home, the sensitivity of the Exacto Test HIV Self-test was estimated at 100%, while its specificity was 96.0%. The majority of participants (68.0%) affirmed that post-test counseling was essential, and that face-to-face counseling (78.9%) was greatly preferred.

conclusionsHome-based, supervised HIVST using a blood-based self-test and peer-based approach can be used with a high degree of acceptability and feasibility by adolescents living in Kisangani, DRC. Misinterpretation of test results is challenging to obtaining good feasibility of HIVST among adolescents with poor educational level. Face-to-face post-test counseling seems to be preferred among Kisangani's adolescents.

Indexed as

AdolescentAIDS SerodiagnosisCounselingCross-Sectional StudiesDemocratic Republic of the CongoFeasibility StudiesFemaleHIV-1HIV-2HIV AntigensHIV InfectionsHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMass ScreeningPatient Acceptance of Health CareHIV AntigensReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID31260480
PMCPMC6602204
OpenAlexW2953476943

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.