Observational studyWomen's health (London, England)
HIV self-testing in cis women in Canada: The GetaKit study.
Observational study in Women's health (London, England). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The CanCURE Survey: Gender-Based Differences in HIV Cure Research Priorities.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Asynchronous Online Platforms Can Reduce Healthcare Costs for STI and HIV Testing: Evaluating GetaKit.ca in Ontario, Canada.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
- Comparing the Uptake of HIV Self-Testing to HIV Serology: Findings from GetaKit-A Prospective Open Cohort Study in Ontario, Canada.Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS CareArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn light of ongoing HIV diagnoses among cis women, despite decreases in other populations, such as men who have sex with men, various testing approaches, including HIV self-tests are being targeted at cis women as a means of identifying undiagnosed HIV infections and of linking those with positive test results to care. Little, however, is known about risk characteristics of cis women who access HIV self-tests in Canada.
objectivesOur objectives were to examine demographic characteristics, risk factors, and test results of cis women who obtained HIV self-tests through the HIV self-testing platform, GetaKit.ca.
designGetaKit.ca was an observational cohort study that provided free HIV self-tests to Canadians with reported risk factors for HIV acquisition.
methodsWe completed an analysis of cis women who ordered HIV self-tests from GetaKit.ca between April 1, 2021 and May 31, 2023. Data analysis involved tabulating frequencies and means, plus chi-square calculations to determine significant differences between cis women and cis men who obtained HIV self-tests.
resultsDuring the study period, 7420 orders for HIV self-tests were made through GetaKit.ca; 22% of these orders were made by cis women. Compared to cis men, cis women had significantly higher reported rates of injection drug use and significantly lower reported rates of prior sexually transmitted infection testing, HIV testing (with more cis women indicating their last HIV test was more than 12 months ago), and reporting HIV self-test results. Despite this, we found no differences in the number of cis women with a positive HIV self-test compared to cis men (positivity rate of 0.2% versus 0.3%, respectively).
conclusionOur findings showed less overall uptake of HIV testing in cis women, despite matched risks and positive test results. Future interventions to engage cis women in HIV testing should include increased access points for HIV self-tests and enhanced linkage to care pathways to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis or HIV treatment.
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.