ArticleBMC infectious diseases2024
Comparative acceptability of saliva-based self-testing versus blood-based self-testing for HIV screening among key populations in Kisangani.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHIV self-testing represents a convenient and confidential option for HIV testing-the present study aimed to assess the acceptability of blood versus saliva self-tests among key populations in Kisangani.
methodsThis study was an analytical cross-sectional study. Our sample size was 363 subjects. After obtaining their consent, we administered a questionnaire to participants. We asked participants to choose between blood and saliva self-testing. We defined the acceptability of the self-test (saliva or blood) as the intention to use the self-test using a 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics were described by estimating proportions for categorical variables and means with standard deviations for symmetrically distributed quantitative variables. The variable of interest was the acceptability of self-testing, which was dichotomized (Very Likely/Unlikely). The corresponding endpoint was the proportion of participants accepting the self-test in HIV screening. A bivariate analysis was performed to determine factors related to the acceptability of the self-test, using Pearson's Chi-square (χ2) and ANOVA followed by 2-to-2 multiple comparisons (Bonferroni) for comparison of means and proportions. A progressive stepwise logistic regression model at the 5% threshold included variables with a bi-variate association.
resultsThe acceptability of the blood self-test was 71.6% compared to 28.4% for the saliva self-test. Factors associated with acceptability of the self-test were higher level of education aOR CI95%: 1.5(0.4-5.5) p = 0.006; non-use of condoms with casual partners aOR CI95%: 2.8(1.4-5) p = 0.003; knowledge of the type of self-test aOR CI95%:2.4(1.02-5.65) p = 0.043 and the obstacle to acceptability of the self-test was non-availability of the self-test aOR CI 95%: 18.9(6.5-54.9) p < 0.0001.
conclusionOur study showed that key populations in Kisangani preferred blood self-testing over saliva self-testing. Blood self-tests must be made available to key population groups, as this would improve access to testing for these populations, thus boosting the first UNAIDS target 95.
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.