ArticlePloS one2024
Preferences and uptake of home-based HIV self-testing for maternal retesting in Kenya.
Article in PloS one, 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare preferences, uptake, and cofactors for unassisted home-based oral self-testing (HB-HIVST) versus clinic-based rapid diagnostic blood tests (CB-RDT) for maternal HIV retesting.
designProspective cohort.
methodsBetween November 2017 and June 2019, HIV-negative pregnant Kenyan women receiving antenatal care were enrolled and given a choice to retest with HB-HIVST or CB-RDT. Women were asked to retest between 36 weeks gestation and 1-week post-delivery if the last HIV test was <24 weeks gestation or at 6 weeks postpartum if ≥24 weeks gestation, and self-report on retesting at a 14-week postpartum.
resultsOverall, 994 women enrolled and 33% (n = 330) selected HB-HIVST. HB-HIVST was selected because it was private (n = 224, 68%), convenient (n = 211, 63%), and offered flexibility in the timing of retesting (n = 207, 63%), whereas CB-RDT was selected due to the trust of providers to administer the test (n = 510, 77%) and convenience of clinic testing (n = 423, 64%). Among 905 women who reported retesting at follow-up, 135 (15%) used HB-HIVST. Most (n = 595, 94%) who selected CB-RDT retested with this strategy, compared to 39% (n = 120) who selected HB-HIVST retesting with HB-HIVST. HB-HIVST retesting was more common among women with higher household income and those who may have been unable to test during pregnancy (both retested postpartum and delivered <37 weeks gestation) and less common among women who were depressed. Most women said they would retest in the future using the test selected at enrollment (99% [n = 133] HB-HIVST; 93% [n = 715] CB-RDT-RDT).
conclusionsWhile most women preferred CB-RDT for maternal retesting, HB-HIVST was acceptable and feasible and could be used to expand HIV retesting options.
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.