ArticleWorld journal of methodology2023
Preferences for oral-
Article in World journal of methodology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acceptability, appropriateness, willingness to use, and perceptions towards HIV self-testing among adolescent girls and young women in rural Northern Uganda: a baseline formative cross-sectional study.Implementation science communications · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe evidence on preferences for oral-
aimTo examine the existing literature on preferences for oral-
methodsDatabases such as PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, and Web of Science were searched for articles published between January 2011 to October 2022. Articles must address preferences for oral-
resultsThe initial search revealed 2424 records, of which 8 studies were finally included in the scoping review. Pooled preference for blood-based HIVST was 48.8% (9%-78.6%), whereas pooled preference for oral HIVST was 59.8% (34.2%-91%) across all studies. However, for male-specific studies, the preference for blood-based HIVST (58%-65.6%) was higher than that for oral (34.2%-41%). The four studies that reported a higher preference for blood-based HIVST were in men. Participants considered blood-based HIVST to be more accurate and rapid, while those with a higher preference for oral HIVST did so because these were considered non-invasive and easy to use.
conclusionConsistently in the literature, men preferred blood-based HIVST over oral HIVST due to higher risk perception and desire for a test that provides higher accuracy coupled with rapidity, autonomy, privacy, and confidentiality, whereas those with a higher preference for oral HIVST did so because these were considered non-invasive and easy to use. Misinformation and distrust need to be addressed through promotional messaging to maximize the diversity of this new biomedical technology.
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.