ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Evaluating effectiveness and comparative costs of hepatitis C virus self-testing service delivery models in Vietnam: A cross-sectional study.
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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Hepatitis C virus self-testing (HCVST) has been shown to reach people who may not otherwise test. We conducted a cross-sectional survey to assess the effectiveness and costs of different HCVST distribution models among key populations (KPs) and people living with HIV (PLHIV) in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, between September 2023 and April 2024. We engaged eight community-based organizations (CBOs) and 10 public and private clinics in offering HCVST using oral fluid-based HCV rapid antibody tests along with standard or provider-led HCV testing (HCVT). HCVST effectiveness was assessed by the proportion of first-time testers, HCV positivity yield, and linkage to care. Outcomes were stratified by distribution model (community, facility, online, secondary distribution) and compared to standard HCVT. Cost per HCV diagnosis was calculated in US dollars. Among 2,882 participants tested for HCV, 1,834 used HCVST and 1,048 used standard HCVT. HCVST users were more likely to be first-time testers compared to those opting for standard testing (67.6% vs. 59,1%; p < 0.001). The highest proportion of first-time testers was reached through secondary distribution (91.4%) and community distribution (83.8%). HCV positivity through HCVST was significantly lower at CBOs but similar at clinics compared to standard testing (11% vs. 16%; p < 0.01; 16.8% vs. 20.8%; p = 0.094). HCVST at CBOs and clinics was more costly than standard testing ($636 vs. $408 and $605 vs. $218). HCVST was still costlier at CBOs but cheaper at clinics compared to standard testing when kit costs decreased to $2 ($417 vs. $218 and $357 vs. $408). HCVST effectively reached people with HCV and more first-time testers, compared to standard testing among KPs and PLHIV. While current HCVST distribution approaches are costlier than standard testing, modest reductions in commodity costs could make services comparable to help achieve Vietnam's HCV elimination goals and reach underserved 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.