ArticleEpidemics2021
Effective strategies to promote HIV self-testing for men who have sex with men: Evidence from a mathematical model.
Article in Epidemics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prospects of HIV elimination among men who have sex with men: A systematic review of modeling studies.PLoS computational biology · 2026Pooled it
- A Review of Network Models for HIV Spread.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Awareness and Use of HIV Self-Testing Among Men Who Have Sex With Men Remains Low in Spain 2 Years After Its Authorization.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Intention to use and acceptability of home-based sexual health care among men who have sex with men who previously attended clinic-based sexual health care.Frontiers in reproductive health · 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHIV testing is the gateway to HIV treatment and prevention. HIV self-testing (HIVST) has potential to increase testing; however, the potential population-level impact of HIVST on the HIV epidemic and the best strategies for promoting HIVST are unknown. Our aim is to inform public health approaches for promoting HIVST as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce HIV incidence.
methodsStochastic network-based HIV transmission models were used to estimate how different HIVST strategies would affect HIV incidence in Seattle and Atlanta over 10 years. We included four types of HIV testers and implemented nine replacement and eleven supplementation strategies for HIVST.
resultsReplacement of clinic-based tests with HIVST increased HIV incidence in Seattle and Atlanta. The benefits of supplementary strategies depended on the tester type using HIVST. Targeting non-testers averted the highest number of cases per test. In Seattle 2.2 (95%SI=-77, 100.4) and 4.7 (95%SI=-35.7, 60.1) infections were averted per 1000 HIVST when non-testers used HIVST once or twice per year respectively. In Atlanta the comparable rates were 8.0 (95%SI=-60.3 to 77.7) and 6.7 (95%SI=-37.7, 41.0). Paradoxically, increasing testing among risk-based testers using HIVST increased incidence.
conclusionsThe population-level impact of HIVST depends on who is reached with HIVST, how kits are used, and by characteristics of the underlying epidemic and HIV care infrastructure. Targeted HIVST can be an effective component of a comprehensive HIV testing strategy. More work is needed to understand how to identify and target non-testers for self-testing implementation.
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.