ArticlePloS one2020
Usability assessment of seven HIV self-test devices conducted with lay-users in Johannesburg, South Africa.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- HIV Self-Testing Uptake and Intervention Strategies Among Men in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in public health · 2021Pooled it
- The acceptability and usability of two HIV self-test kits among men who have sex with men: a randomised crossover trial.The Medical journal of Australia · 2022Trial
- Sustaining success: a qualitative study of gay and bisexual men's experiences and perceptions of HIV self-testing in a randomized controlled trial.BMC public health · 2021Trial
- Acceptability and usability of COVID-19 antigen self-test in populations under socioeconomic vulnerability in Brazil: A cross-sectional study.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Acceptability and usability of home-based HIV and blood glucose self-testing and home-based blood pressure measurement in Kenya, South Africa, and Zambia.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- A prospective multi-site study to evaluate the performance and usability of an oral fluid-based HIV self-test in Canada.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Observational
- Preferences for oral-World journal of methodology · 2023Article
- Article
- Acceptability, feasibility, and accuracy of blood-based HIV self-testing: A cross-sectional study in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- The evolution of HIV self-testing and the introduction of digital interventions to improve HIV self-testing.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2023Article
- HIV Self-testing Among Previously Diagnosed HIV-Positive People in Khayelitsha, South Africa: No Evidence of Harm but may Facilitate Re-engagement in ART Care.AIDS and behavior · 2022Article
- Point-of-Care Diagnostics for Diagnosis of Active Syphilis Infection: Needs, Challenges and the Way Forward.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Usability and acceptability of oral-based HCV self-testing among key populations: a mixed-methods evaluation in Tbilisi, Georgia.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Observational
- Sensitivity and specificity of OraQuick® HIV self-test compared to a 4th generation laboratory reference standard algorithm in urban and rural Zambia.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Syphilis self-testing to expand test uptake among men who have sex with men: a theoretically informed mixed methods study in Zimbabwe.Sexually transmitted infections · 2022Article
- HCV Self-Testing to Expand Testing: A Pilot Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in China.Frontiers in public health · 2022Observational
- Utility of a Machine-Guided Tool for Assessing Risk Behavior Associated With Contracting HIV in Three Sites in South Africa: Protocol for an In-Field Evaluation.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
- Assessment of the Sedia HIV Self-Test Device: Usability and Performance in the Hands of Untrained Users in Johannesburg, South Africa.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Usability and Clinical Performance Characteristics of the Asante HIV1/2 Test by Trained Users in Two African Sites.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe first 90 of the 90-90-90 initiative introduced by the World Health Organization(WHO) in 2015 requires 90% of people with HIV be aware of their status by 2020. In South Africa, conventional facility-based testing had reached 84.9% in 2018; innovative new methods, like HIV self-testing(HIVST) may close the testing gap. This study aimed to determine the usability of seven HIVST kits among untrained South Africans.
methodsThis cross-sectional study of 1400 adults in Johannesburg evaluated the usability of five blood fingerstick and two oral fluid HIVSTs, using WHO prequalification criteria, from June 2016 to June 2018. Participants were handed one kit, with no further information about the device or test procedure, and asked to perform the test in front of an observer. The observer used product-specific semi-structured questionnaires organized into a composite usability index(UI) using a HIVST process checklist, a contrived results interpretation and a post-test interview that expanded on participant experiences with the device and instructions-of-use(IFU). Participants were not tested themselves, but provided with contrived results to interpret.
resultsThe average UI was 92.8%(84.2%-97.6%); the major difficulty was obtaining and transferring the specimen. Participants correctly interpreted 96.1% of the non-reactive/negative, 97.0% of the reactive/positive, 98.0% of the invalid and 79.9% of the weak positive results. Almost all participants(97.0%) stated they would visit a clinic or seek treatment for positive results; with negative results, half(50.6%) stated they should re-test in the next three months while one-third(36.1%) said they should condomize. Nearly all found the devices easy to use(96.6%), the IFUSs easy to understand(97.9%) and felt confident using the test unassisted(95.9%) but suggested improvements to packaging/IFUs to further increase usability; 19.9% preferred clinic-based testing to HIVST.
conclusionThe UI and interpretation of results was high and in-line with previous usability studies, suggesting that these kits are appropriate for use in the general, untrained and unsupervised public.
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.