Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32607914›Full record

ArticleAIDS and behavior2021

Youth Preferences for HIV Testing in South Africa: Findings from the Youth Action for Health (YA4H) Study Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Candice M Chetty-Makkan, Christopher J Hoffmann, Salome Charalambous, Claire Botha, Simphiwe Ntshuntshe, Nolwazi Nkosi, Hae-Young Kim

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in AIDS and behavior, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The application of discrete choice experiments eliciting young peoples' preferences for healthcare: a systematic literature review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  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
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Candice M Chetty-MakkanThe Aurum Institute, Aurum House, The Ridge, 29 Queens Road, Parktown, Johannesburg, 2193, South Africa. cchetty@auruminstitute.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9292-9586
Christopher J HoffmannThe Aurum Institute, Aurum House, The Ridge, 29 Queens Road, Parktown, Johannesburg, 2193, South Africa.
Salome CharalambousThe Aurum Institute, Aurum House, The Ridge, 29 Queens Road, Parktown, Johannesburg, 2193, South Africa.
Claire BothaThe Aurum Institute, Aurum House, The Ridge, 29 Queens Road, Parktown, Johannesburg, 2193, South Africa.
Simphiwe NtshuntsheThe Aurum Institute, Aurum House, The Ridge, 29 Queens Road, Parktown, Johannesburg, 2193, South Africa.
Nolwazi NkosiThe Aurum Institute, Aurum House, The Ridge, 29 Queens Road, Parktown, Johannesburg, 2193, South Africa.
Hae-Young KimAfrica Health Research Institute, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
Aurum Institute · ZAUniversity of the Witwatersrand · ZAAfrica Health Research Institute · ZAJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

Santhe #COL008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and quantified preferences for HIV testing among South African youth (Nov 2018 to Mar 2019). Six attributes and levels were identified through qualitative methods: source of HIV information; incentive amount and type; social support; testing method; and location. Each participant chose one of two options that comprised six attributes across 18 questions. Conditional logistic regression estimated the degree of preference [β]. Of 130 participants, median age was 21 years (interquartile range 19-23 years), majority female (58%), and 85% previously tested for HIV. Testing alone over accompanied by a friend (β = 0.22 vs. - 0.35; p < 0.01); SMS text over paper brochures (β = 0.13 vs. - 0.10; p < 0.01); higher incentive values (R50) over no incentive (β = 0.09 vs. - 0.07; p = 0.01); and food vouchers over cash (β = 0.06 vs. β =  - 0.08; p = 0.01) were preferred. Testing at a clinic or home and family encouragement were important. Tailoring HTS to youth preferences may increase HIV testing.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsHIV TestingAdolescentAdultAge FactorsChoice BehaviorFemaleHealth PromotionHumansMotivationPatient PreferenceSouth AfricaYoung AdultCellphone technologyDiscrete choice experimentHIV testing uptakeIncentives N = 149Youth

Identifiers

PMID32607914
OpenAlexW3038818355

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.