ArticleResearch square2024
Stakeholder-engaged development of a rapid test for detection of acute HIV infection.
Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background/Objective: The utilization of rapid HIV tests has been effective at reducing transmission rates in high-risk populations by allowing individuals to receive diagnosis in as little as one minute and begin treatment. However, no current rapid tests can detect HIV immediately after infection in the acute HIV infection (AHI) phase, when the virus is at its most infectious, and instead require a waiting period of up to 90 days after exposure. Rapid HIV tests to detect AHI are currently under development. Investigation of stakeholder perspectives and context-specific needs are critical to ensure successful translation of novel AHI tests. The objectives of this study were to 1) understand context-specific factors such as barriers to HIV testing in Indiana, a state with one of 48 prioritized counties for HIV elimination; 2) assess the acceptability of a novel rapid AHI test, and 3) identify key implementation considerations for such a device, including ideal end-users. Methods: Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with staff (n = 14) and clients (n = 5) of Indiana-based organizations that conduct HIV testing, including syringe service programs. Utilizing human-centered design frameworks, interview guides were developed and tailored to each participant group to understand their experiences with HIV testing, perspectives on a novel rapid AHI test in development, and preferences for self-testing versus testing by a community health worker (CHW) or a peer recovery coach. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify major themes, including barriers to HIV testing and perceived benefits and concerns of the proposed AHI test. Results: Overall acceptability for a novel AHI rapid test was high with a greater preference for CHW/Peerled testing. While self-testing was not a preferred modality, it was still seen as a potential tool to reach and address key barriers among high-risk individuals. Key considerations for implementation emphasized accuracy, cost-effectiveness, ease of use, ensuring access to counseling, education, and navigation to care while maintaining a human element to self-testing. Conclusion: Stakeholder engagement is meaningfully informing the design, development, and implementation of rapid AHI testing in order to facilitate adoption among populations at high-risk for HIV.
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.