ArticleBMJ open2025
Comparison of HIV self-test distribution modalities to reduce HIV transmission and burden in western Kenya: a mathematical modelling study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the impact of different HIV self-testing (HIVST) distribution modalities on population-level HIV outcomes.
designMathematical modelling study.
settingSix counties in western Kenya.
methodsWe projected population-level HIV outcomes among individuals aged 15+over 30 years (2022-2052) using EMOD-HIV, an agent-based network transmission model calibrated to the HIV epidemic in western Kenya. We simulated the impact of three HIVST distribution modalities: (1) secondary distribution to male partners via women who attend antenatal care visits ('ANC'); (2) secondary distribution to partners of individuals newly diagnosed with HIV at health facilities ('partner services'); and (3) distribution to any individuals attending outpatient clinics ('outpatient'). We informed our model assumptions on HIV testing uptake for each HIVST distribution modality using the estimates from a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials published between 2006 and 2019 and compared the outcomes for each HIVST distribution modality to standard testing without HIVST. OUTCOMES MEASURES: The number of HIV tests performed (HIVST and non-HIVST), HIV diagnoses, HIV infections, and HIV-related deaths.
resultsWith standard testing alone, the average number of HIV tests was 4.69 million per year, amounting to 81.0 tests per 100 adults. The average number of tests per year increased by 2.9% with ANC, 0.6% with partner services, and 23.7% with outpatient distribution of HIVST. Compared with standard testing alone, partner services with HIVST will avert the largest number of new HIV infections (10.2%, 95% CI 9.9% to 10.5%), followed by outpatient distribution (8.5%, 95% CI 8.2% to 8.7%) and ANC (6.1%, 95% CI 5.8% to 6.3%). Compared with standard testing, the number of HIVST needed per one additional HIV infection averted was 216 with ANC, 17 with partner services and 2009 with outpatient, while the number of HIVST per one additional HIV-related death averted was 364 with ANC, 17 with partner services and 3851 with outpatient.
conclusionsSecondary distribution of HIVST to partners of individuals newly diagnosed with HIV could prevent the most HIV infections and HIV-related deaths. HIVST can be an important strategy to improve uptake of testing and long-term population-level health effects.
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.