Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31821698›Full record

Trial reportHIV medicine2020

HIV self-testing intervention experiences and kit usability: results from a qualitative study among men who have sex with men in the SELPHI (Self-Testing Public Health Intervention) randomized controlled trial in England and Wales.

T C Witzel, A Bourne, F M Burns, A J Rodger, L McCabe, M M Gabriel, M Gafos, D Ward, Y Collaco-Moraes, D T Dunn and 8 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in HIV medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Reach and effectiveness outcomes of the "I'm Ready" HIV self-testing program in Black communities in Canada.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Self-Testing as a Hope to Reduce HIV in Transgender Women-Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  18. HIV and STI Testing Preferences for Men Who Have Sex with Men in High-Income Countries: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

18 authors.

T C WitzelDepartment of Public Health, Environments and Society, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4262-261X
A BourneAustralian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
F M BurnsInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
A J RodgerInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
L McCabeMedical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK.
M M GabrielMedical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK.
M GafosMedical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK.
D WardMedical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK.
Y Collaco-MoraesMedical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK.
D T DunnMedical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK.
A SpeakmanInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
C BonellDepartment of Public Health, Environments and Society, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
R PebodyNAM Aidsmap, London, UK.
F C LampeInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
J HarbottleSH:24, London, UK.
A N PhillipsInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
S McCormackMedical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK.
P WeatherburnDepartment of Public Health, Environments and Society, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-1212-20006Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/23
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesSELPHI (HIV Self-Testing Public Health Intervention) is the largest randomized controlled trial (RCT) of HIV self-testing (HIVST) in a high-income setting to date, and has recruited 10 000 men who have sex with men (cis- and transgender) and transgender women who have sex with men. This qualitative substudy aimed to explore how those utilizing self-tests experience HIVST and the implications for further intervention development and scale-up. This is the first qualitative study in Europe investigating experiences of HIVST among intervention users, and the first globally examining the experience of using blood-based HIVST.

methodsThirty-seven cisgender MSM SELPHI participants from across England and Wales were purposively recruited to the substudy, in which semi-structured interviews were used to explore testing history, HIVST experiences and intervention preferences. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed through a framework analysis.

resultsMen accessed the intervention because HIVST reduced barriers related to convenience, stigma and privacy concerns. Emotional responses had direct links to acceptability. Supportive intervention components increased engagement with testing and addressed supportive concerns. HIVST facilitated more frequent testing, with the potential to reduce sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening frequency. Substudy participants with an HIV-positive result (n = 2) linked to care promptly and reported very high acceptability. Minor adverse outcomes (n = 2; relationship discord and fainting) did not reduce acceptability. Ease of use difficulties were with the lancet and the test processing stage.

conclusionsIntervention components shaped acceptability, particularly in relation to overcoming a perceived lack of support. The intervention was broadly acceptable and usable; participants expressed an unexpected degree of enthusiasm for HIVST, including those with HIV-positive results and individuals with minor adverse outcomes.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultDeveloped CountriesEarly Detection of CancerEnglandEvaluation Studies as TopicFemaleHIV InfectionsHomosexuality, MaleHumansInterviews as TopicMalePatient Acceptance of Health CareReagent Kits, DiagnosticSelf-TestingTransgender PersonsReagent Kits, DiagnosticHIV preventionHIV testingimplementation sciencemen who have sex with menprocess evaluation

Identifiers

PMID31821698
PMCPMC7065141

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.