ArticleBMC health services research2025
Self-sampling and self-testing for HIV at a commercial and community-based test provider in the Netherlands: user preferences and usability.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. 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.
- Acceptability, Barriers, and Facilitators to Home-Based Syphilis Self-testing: A Scoping Review.AIDS and behavior · 2026Review
- HIV self-testing awareness among African refugee male sex workers in Italy: A mixed-methods study.PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
HIV self-sampling and -testing (HIVSS/ST) reduces testing barriers and potentially reaches populations who may not test otherwise. In the Netherlands, at-home HIV tests became commercially available around 2016, but data on user experiences are limited. This study aimed to explore characteristics of users and their experiences with HIVSS/ST. In 2022 and 2023, a survey was distributed among users of one online commercial provider and one community-based provider; either users ordered a commercial online HIVSS/ST or they sought a free-of-charge HIVST via the community-based provider. Questions included usability, preferences, and barriers of HIVSS/ST-testing. We compared characteristics and experiences of users between providers, risk groups and first-time and repeat testers. In total, 133 users completed the survey; 89 (67%) via the commercial provider and 44 (33%) via the community-based provider. Response rates per provider were 2% and 26%, respectively. Users who bought their test at the commercial provider were more often Gay and Bisexual Men (GBM) (42%), 35 + years (43%), and born in the Netherlands (89%), compared to those recruited through the community-provider (respectively 27%, 25%, 14%). GBM were more often repeat and recent HIVSS/ST-testers, and using pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Women and heterosexual men were more likely to buy an HIVSS/ST as part of a combination Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI) test package. Overall, main reasons for choosing HIVSS/ST were saving time (42%), anonymity (36%) and not having to talk to a GP (35%). Twenty-two percent of the study participants experienced some problems performing the HIVSS/ST, the most reported problem was obtaining sufficient blood through the finger prick (71%). Recommendations to improve accessibility of HIVSS/ST included more awareness (advertising by trustful providers), more access locations (pharmacies/supermarkets/schools) and lower costs. Our findings indicate that HIVSS/ST is a valuable additional HIV testing method for users, but more insight into the contribution of HIVSS/ST to HIV prevention policies is needed.
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.