Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33293799›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2020

A Scoping Review of Patient Preferences for HIV Self-Testing Services in the United States: Implications for Harm Reduction.

Mary E Hawk, Ashley Chung, Stephanie L Creasy, James E Egan

Registry-linked trialAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06270160 (Tushirikiane-4-Uthabiti), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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.

NCT06270160 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Tushirikiane-4-Uthabiti (Supporting Each Other For Resilience)

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of TorontoRan2024 to 2024Enrolled432ConditionsFinancial Stress, Social Functioning, Social SkillsArmsHIVST, mHealth, Creating Futures Livelihoods program
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 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. Article
  14. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2022
    Article
  15. Recommendations for equitable COVID-19 pandemic recovery in Canada.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2021
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

4 authors.

Mary E HawkBehavioral and Community Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9753-4356
Ashley ChungJewish Healthcare Foundation, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4706-8072
Stephanie L CreasyBehavioral and Community Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
James E EganBehavioral and Community Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDespite marked progress in the ability to test for, treat, and prevent HIV, the epidemic remains a significant public health concern, especially among key populations including prisoners; sex workers; transgender individuals; gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM); and Black and Latinx MSM. This scoping review was conducted to provide an overview of the current research describing patient preferences for HIVST in the United States to understand what key populations value about HIVST and why they are willing to use it. A targeted search for published literature on patient preferences for HIVST was conducted using Ovid Medline, PsychINFO, and an HIVST research database.

resultsWe reviewed 700 abstracts and 139 full texts. We found 19 articles published between January 2014 and April 2020 that included findings related to HIVST preferences. Overall, HIVST was preferred to more traditional testing. Six primary factors emerged as important HIVST values including: 1) convenience, 2) type of test; 3) cost, 4) stigma reduction, 5) risk reduction, and 6) self-control. Linkage to care was also identified as a key factor when considering HIVST as an option. Much of what makes HIVST attractive to individuals is their ability to self-determine how HIVST can be best integrated into their lives as a harm reduction tool for stigma and sexual risk mitigation.

conclusionWhile there is substantial evidence suggesting HIVST is feasible for use and there are aspects of HIVST that are beneficial and preferred over traditional testing approaches, there is a lack of rigorous implementation studies exploring how best to scale up HIVST in community settings. HIVST has the potential to be a powerful biobehavioral HIV prevention and harm reduction tool to empower individuals to engage with testing on their own terms while providing pathways to prevention and care support.

Indexed as

harm reductionHIVHIVSTpatient preferencesself-testingUnited States

Identifiers

PMID33293799
PMCPMC7719302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.