ArticleGlobal health, science and practice2022
A Cross-Sectional Assessment of HIV Self-Testing Preferences and Uptake Among Key Populations in Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Article in Global health, science and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oral fluid versus blood in HIV self-testing: A step towards "95-95-95" targets of the UNAIDS?Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2025Review
- Article
- Socio-behavioral determinants of early vs. long-term HIV infection in Kazakhstan: roles of self-testing, alcohol, drug use and sexual networks.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Leveraging HIV self-testing to achieve the UNAIDS 2025 targets in the South and Southeast Asia region.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2024Article
- Preferences for oral-World journal of methodology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHIV self-testing (HIVST) is recommended by the World Health Organization, but implementation remains limited. This cross-sectional study evaluated HIVST uptake among female entertainment workers (EWs), men who have sex with men (MSM), and transgender women in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, to inform national implementation.
methodsBetween December 2018 and September 2019, individuals reached through community outreach or via online advertising were offered HIVST or referrals to facility-based testing. Participants opting for HIVST could choose between test kits employing oral-fluid or finger-prick-based sample collection; and between an "assisted" option in which outreach staff offered instructions and assistance and an "unassisted" option in which participants received a kit with instructions for use. A structured questionnaire was administered to facilitate descriptive statistics and tests for associations between participant characteristics and HIV testing preferences and outcomes.
resultsAmong 1,241 eligible individuals; 1,210 (97.5%) provided responses for analysis. Of these, 1,203 (99.4%) were recruited through outreach; 7 (0.6%) through online advertising. Among those recruited by outreach, 1,186 (98.6%) opted for assisted HIVST, and 1,065 (88.5%) opted for oral-fluid versus finger-prick testing. All individuals recruited through online advertisements opted for unassisted oral-fluid testing. Among all participants, 455 (37.6%) were MSM, 325 (26.9%) were transgender women, 430 (35.5%) were female EWs, and overall, 71.7% reported never previously testing for HIV. A total of 84 participants (6.9%) received reactive screening results and 81 (97.5%) were linked to treatment.
conclusionUptake of HIVST was high, and most participants preferred oral-fluid over finger-prick-based testing. Many individuals (72%) who had never previously accessed HIV testing services participated in HIVST, with high rates of reactivity.
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.