ArticleBMC public health2021
An observed, prospective field study to evaluate the performance and acceptance of a blood-based HIV self-test in Canada.
Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors Associated with Mobile App Ordering of HIV Self-test Kits and Reporting of Results Among Black People in Canada: Analysis of Data from "I'm Ready" National HIV Self-testing Implementation Study.AIDS and behavior · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of the I'm Ready HIV Self-Testing Programme Among High-Risk Populations in Canada.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Acceptability of HIV self-testing among sexual health service providers and Two-Spirit, gay, bisexual, and queer men in Ontario, Canada.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Article
- Analytical and Clinical Validation of the ConfiSign HIV Self-Test for Blood-Based HIV Screening.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Utility and usability of a dengue NS1 rapid diagnostic as a self-test.Tropical medicine and health · 2025Article
- 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
- Quality, acceptability and usability of self-sampling kits used by non-healthcare professionals for STI diagnosis in Spain: a single-blind study.Sexually transmitted infections · 2024Article
- 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
- HIV self-testing in the real world is acceptable for many: post-test participant feedback from the GetaKit study in Ottawa, Canada.Journal of research in nursing : JRN · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSelf testing for HIV is a targeted intervention with the potential to increase the access, uptake and frequency of HIV testing and more effectively reach the undiagnosed, especially in priority populations. The objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate the INSTI HIV self-test performance compared with laboratory reference testing, (2) document if intended users can perform the steps to use the HIV self-test device, and (3) document if intended users can successfully interpret contrived positive, negative, and invalid results. Study was intended to be submitted to Health Canada for review for regulatory approval purposes.
methodsThe study used a cross-sectional design and recruited consenting adults who were representative of intended users of HIV self-testing from four community sites across Ontario, Québec, and Manitoba between August 2019 and March 2020. The results of the observed HIV self-test were compared with results of the Abbott Architect HIV Ag/Ab Combo test. Usability outcomes for critical (e.g., lancing finger, blood droplet into bottle, shaking bottle four times) and noncritical self-test procedure steps were also determined.
resultsOverall, 77% (n = 522) of participants were between 18 and 45 years of age, 61% (n = 410) were male, 71% (n = 480) had some college or more education, and 45% (n = 307) were employed; identity for race and ethnicity: Caucasian (44%; n = 296), African, Caribbean or Black (17%; n = 113), Indigenous [First Nations, Métis or Inuit] (14%; n = 95), Asian (16%; n = 106), Latin American (7%; n = 46). Primary performance analysis on 678 completed HIV self-tests revealed a positive percent agreement of 100% (5/5, 95% CI: 43.6-97.0%) and a negative percent agreement of 99.5% (614/617, 95% CI: 98.6-99.8%) with the comparator method. The overall percent agreement of results interpretation between participant and observer was 93.5% (n = 633). For the 708 participants who took part in the usability study, the average success rate for steps determined to be "critical" for successful completion of the test was 92.4%. 97% (n = 670) of participants found the instructions easy to follow, and 95% (n = 655) of participants indicated that they would use the test again. Of the 404 participants who interpreted the strong positive, weak positive, negative, and invalid contrived results, successful interpretation ranged from 90.6% (for weak positive, n = 366) to 99.3% (for negative, n = 401).
conclusionsThe addition of a regulatory-approved self-test into the Canadian HIV testing landscape could significantly increase HIV testing rates. Having a blood-based HIV self-test approved in Canada can offer an accurate, acceptable, and simple alternative to facility-based HIV testing, particularly when impacted by Coronavirus pandemic restrictions.
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.