Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32670629›Full record

ArticleSouthern African journal of HIV medicine2020

Evaluation of a mobile application to support HIV self-testing in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Natasha Gous, Alex E Fischer, Naleni Rhagnath, Mothepane Phatsoane, Mohammed Majam, Samanta T Lalla-Edward

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Southern African journal of HIV medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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.

Natasha GousSystemOne, LLC, Weltevreden Park, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0235-2694
Alex E FischerEzintsha, Wits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6882-7245
Naleni RhagnathEzintsha, Wits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1798-7887
Mothepane PhatsoaneEzintsha, Wits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6925-0428
Mohammed MajamEzintsha, Wits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0302-5353
Samanta T Lalla-EdwardEzintsha, Wits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3597-1643

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHuman immunodeficiency virus self-testing (HIVST) reduces barriers associated with facility-based testing; however, no formal mechanism exists for users to self-report results or link to care. The Aspect

objectivesThis study evaluated the acceptability and feasibility of the Aspect

methodThis cross-sectional pilot, with a convenience sample of 300 adults, was conducted in July 2018. Participants were provided an OraQuick HIVST kit and a smartphone preloaded with the app, then asked to follow the in-app instructions for use (IFU) to complete the HIVST and upload results. Trained healthcare workers (HCWs) observed and recorded any deviations from the IFU, and conducted a post-test survey to assess acceptability. Feasibility was evaluated by the number of participants who agreed to participate, completed the self-test, and uploaded all information onto the app correctly.

resultsMost participants (98.7%) found the app easy to use. To reduce difficulties related to the IFU (26; 8.7%), participants suggested multimedia supplements (4; 1.3%), additional languages (4; 1.3%) and simplified instructions (5; 1.7%). All individuals approached, agreed to participate, 267 (89.0%) correctly completed all steps and 210 (78.7%) successfully captured all information on the app. Most errors (26; 8.7%) were testing errors and 1 (0.3%) was from the app sequence. Twelve (4.5%) errors were with test strip imaging and 72 (27.0%) discordances were with demographic information.

conclusionDespite some challenges with IFU interpretation and data capture via the app, this pilot showed that the Aspect

Indexed as

digital healthdigitisationHIV self-testmobile appmonitoring and evaluation

Identifiers

PMID32670629
PMCPMC7343920

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.