ArticleBMC infectious diseases2024
Accuracy of and preferences for blood-based versus oral-fluid-based HIV self-testing in Malawi: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 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
- Article
- Detection of HIV-1 Antibodies in Saliva of Persons Living With HIV Using Blood-Based First Response HIV 1-2.O Card Test.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2025Article
- Acceptability and Feasibility of Remote PrEP Visits for Adolescent Girls and Young Women in South Africa.AIDS and behavior · 2025Article
- Reaching priority populations with different HIV self-testing distribution models in South Africa: an analysis of programme data.BMC infectious diseases · 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
- Usability of a blood-based HIV self-test kit in Lusaka province, Zambia: A cross-sectional analysis.African journal of laboratory medicine · 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
10 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHIV self-testing (HIVST) can use either oral-fluid or blood-based tests. Studies have shown strong preferences for self-testing compared to facility-based services. Despite availability of low-cost blood-based HIVST options, to date, HIVST implementation in sub-Saharan Africa has largely been oral-fluid-based. We investigated whether users preferred blood-based (i.e. using blood sample derived from a finger prick) or oral fluid-based HIVST in rural and urban Malawi.
methodsAt clinics providing HIV testing services (n = 2 urban; n = 2 rural), participants completed a semi-structured questionnaire capturing sociodemographic data before choosing to test using oral-fluid-based HVST, blood-based HIVST or provider-delivered testing. They also completed a self-administered questionnaire afterwards, followed by a confirmatory test using the national algorithm then appropriate referral. We used simple and multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with preference for oral-fluid or blood-based HIVST.
resultsJuly to October 2018, N = 691 participants enrolled in this study. Given the choice, 98.4% (680/691) selected HIVST over provider-delivered testing. Of 680 opting for HIVST, 416 (61.2%) chose oral-fluid-based HIVST, 264 (38.8%) chose blood-based HIVST and 99.1% (674/680) reported their results appropriately. Self-testers who opted for blood-based HIVST were more likely to be male (50.3% men vs. 29.6% women, p < 0.001), attending an urban facility (43% urban vs. 34.6% rural, p = 0.025) and regular salary-earners (49.5% regular vs. 36.8% non-regular, p = 0.012). After adjustment, only sex was found to be associated with choice of self-test (adjusted OR 0.43 (95%CI: 0.3-0.61); p-value < 0.001). Among 264 reporting blood-based HIVST results, 11 (4.2%) were HIV-positive. Blood-based HIVST had sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 71.5-100%) and specificity of 99.6% (95% CI: 97.6-100%), with 20 (7.6%) invalid results. Among 416 reporting oral-fluid-based HIVST results 18 (4.3%) were HIV-positive. Oral-fluid-based HIVST had sensitivity of 88.9% (95% CI: 65.3-98.6%) and specificity of 98.7% (95% CI: 97.1-99.6%), with no invalid results.
conclusionsOffering both blood-based and oral-fluid-based HIVST resulted in high uptake when compared directly with provider-delivered testing. Both types of self-testing achieved high accuracy among users provided with a pre-test demonstration beforehand. Policymakers and donors need to adequately plan and budget for the sensitisation and support needed to optimise the introduction of new quality-assured blood-based HIVST products.
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.