ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Stakeholder considerations on acceptability and implementation of a novel rapid test for acute HIV infection: A qualitative study in Indiana.
Article in PLOS global public health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Acute HIV infection (AHI) is the most infectious stage of HIV, yet existing rapid tests cannot reliably detect HIV in this early phase and require up to 90 days post-exposure for accurate results. Laboratory-based nucleic acid tests can detect AHI but are often inaccessible to high-risk populations with limited healthcare access. Novel rapid AHI tests are in development to bridge this gap by enabling earlier, decentralized detection. This study aims to explore the acceptability and future implementation considerations of such a test through engagement with clients (n = 5) and staff (n = 14) of Indiana-based HIV service organizations. Guided by human-centered design frameworks, semi-structured interviews examined experiences with HIV testing, acceptability of a proposed novel rapid AHI test that could detect infection about one month earlier but would require longer time to results (~60 minutes), and preferences for potential end-users (self, community health workers (CHW) or peers). Transcripts were thematic analyzed. Participants strongly supported earlier detection despite longer wait times, describing the trade-off as worthwhile for reducing transmission, initiating treatment sooner, and alleviating anxiety following high-risk exposures. Clients emphasized the benefits of convenience and peace of mind, particularly for people who use drugs or experience stigma. Staff highlighted the potential to retain individuals who are often lost to follow-up and to strengthen linkage to care. Concerns focused on organizational feasibility of accommodating longer test times and client expectations shaped by existing "rapid" tests. CHW/peer-led testing was preferred due to their ability to build trust, provide education and navigation, while self-testing was viewed as useful for overcoming barriers such as stigma and access, though concerns about accuracy, interpretation, and lack of counseling were noted. Stakeholder insights underscore the importance of accuracy, usability, affordability, and integration of counseling and care navigation in designing and implementing AHI rapid tests to maximize their impact among high-risk populations.
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.