Trial reportHealth policy and planning2026
A process evaluation of community-led distribution of HIV self-testing kits in rural communities in Zimbabwe.
Trial report in Health policy and planning, 2026. 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Community-led distribution of HIV self-test (HIVST) kits has potential to combine the benefits of community-based HIV testing with the strengths of community-led interventions. We report the process evaluation from the community-led arm of a cluster-randomized trial in rural Zimbabwe comparing community-led versus community-based HIVST distribution where distributors were paid. Twenty communities were supported to design HIVST distribution models that suited their context. We conducted community meetings where we introduced community-led HIVST, including messages on the benefits of viral load suppression (Undetectable = Untransmissible; 'U = U'). Communities determined how, and by whom, distribution would be done. Communities implemented their distribution model over 4-6 weeks. We conducted in-depth interviews with community members (n = 20), distributors (n = 20), and health workers (n = 20) as well as 12 focus group discussions (n = 91) with community members. We triangulated findings with participant observations during community meetings and implementation and descriptively analysed programme data on HIVST distribution. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. Participant observations found communities collaboratively developed and embraced HIVST distribution, demonstrating strong enthusiasm for participation. Messaging on U = U was met with interest and surprise, as many community members were unaware of this information, and became a key motivator for HIVST implementation and uptake. Across communities, 348 distributors distributed 27 812 kits door-to-door and/or from their homes or other community venues. Communities where model development was led by local leaders-rather than collective processes-expressed lower level of satisfaction and had slow implementation. Health workers supported HIVST distribution well, with opportunities for improvement noted. While distributors felt proud to deliver HIVST, many experienced logistical burdens and need for material support from the programme and community. Communities designed HIVST delivery models that were acceptable and feasible; however, efforts to make community-led models sustainable are critical. Delivering messages on U = U should continue to be prioritized and embedded within community-based HIVST distribution models.
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.