ArticlePLOS global public health2026
HIV self-testing preferences among adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) in urban settings in Uganda: A discrete choice experiment.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
HIV self-testing (HIVST) is a crucial innovation for improving testing coverage, particularly among adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) who are inadequately reached by standard provider-assisted HIV testing approaches. Understanding their preferences for HIVST services is essential for designing models that optimize uptake. We assessed the HIVST preferences among AGYW at a higher risk of acquiring HIV living in urban Uganda. We enrolled AGYW at a higher risk of HIV using a community-based convenience sampling in a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Each participant completed eight choice sets, each comprising of two hypothetical HIVST service alternatives and an opt-out option. The four attributes included level of assistance (assisted versus unassisted), distribution model (facility-based versus community-based), delivery channel (primary versus secondary) and sample type (oral swab versus blood). A mixed logit model was used to estimate the marginal utilities, relative importance (RI), HIVST profile utilities and predicted uptake (compared to opt-out). Between December 2024 and May 2025, 340 participants were enrolled with mean age 19.8 years (standard deviation (SD): 2.6), and 65.9% of them were not in school. In the main effects model, participants preferred; facility-based over community-based distribution model (β = 0.14 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.06, 0.23)), primary over secondary delivery channel (β = 0.09 (95% CI: 0.00, 0.17)), and unassisted over assisted testing (β = 0.46 (95% CI: 0.37, 0.54). The sample type didn't significantly influence the preferences of participants to use HIVST (β = 0.05 (95%CI: -0.04, 0.13). The level of assistance emerged as the most important attribute (RI: 60%), followed by facility-based distribution model (RI: 18.9%) and primary delivery channel (RI: 12.2%). There was a significant interaction between delivery channel and level of assistance (β = 0.66 (95% CI: 0.07, 1.24)). Primary delivery was preferred over secondary delivery when testing was unassisted (β = 0.41 (95% CI: 0.11, 0.71), but not when testing was assisted (β = -0.25 (95% CI: -0.56, 0.06). AGYW preferred HIVST models combining primary delivery with unassisted testing while facility-based distribution also increased preference. This highlights the importance of considering both individual attributes and their interaction when designing HIV delivery models.
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.