Abstract

IntroductionNew HIV testing strategies are needed to reach the United Nations’ 90‐90‐90 target. HIV self‐testing (HIVST) can increase uptake, but users’ perspectives on optimal models of distribution and post‐test services are uncertain. We used discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to explore the impact of service characteristics on uptake along the testing cascade.Methods DCEs are a quantitative survey method that present respondents with repeated choices between packages of service characteristics, and estimate relative strengths of preferences for service characteristics. From June to October 2016, we embedded DCEs within a population‐based survey following door‐to‐door HIVST distribution by community volunteers in two rural Zimbabwean districts: one DCE addressed HIVST distribution preferences; and the other preferences for linkage to confirmatory testing (LCT) following self‐testing. Using preference coefficients/utilities, we identified key drivers of uptake for each service and simulated the effect of changes of outreach and static/public clinics’ characteristics on LCT.ResultsDistribution and LCT DCEs surveyed 296/329 (90.0%) and 496/594 (83.5%) participants; 81.8% and 84.9% had ever‐tested, respectively. The strongest distribution preferences were for: (1) free kits – a $1 increase in the kit price was associated with a disutility (U) of −2.017; (2) door‐to‐door kit delivery (U = +1.029) relative to collection from public/outreach clinic; (3) telephone helpline for pretest support relative to in‐person or no support (U = +0.415); (4) distributors from own/local village (U = +0.145) versus those from external communities. Participants who had never HIV tested valued phone helplines more than those previously tested. The strongest LCT preferences were: (1) immediate antiretroviral therapy (ART) availability: U = +0.614 and U = +1.052 for public and outreach clinics, respectively; (2) free services: a $1 user fee increase decreased utility at public (U = −0.381) and outreach clinics (U = −0.761); (3) proximity of clinic (U = −0.38 per hour walking). Participants reported willingness to link to either location; but never‐testers were more averse to LCT. Simulations showed the importance of availability of ART: ART unavailability at public clinics would reduce LCT by 24%.ConclusionsFree HIVST distribution by local volunteers and immediately available ART were the strongest relative preferences identified. Accommodating LCT preferences, notably ensuring efficient provision of ART, could facilitate “resistant testers” to test while maximizing uptake of post‐test services.

Highlights

  • New HIV testing strategies are needed to reach the United Nations’ 90-90-90 target

  • The United Nations 90-9090 targets are that by 2020, 90% of people living with HIV should be diagnosed, of whom 90% are on treatment and

  • Of 329 survey participants who were invited to participate in the distribution discrete choice experiments (DCEs), 296 (90%) were recruited

Read more

Summary

Introduction

HIV self-testing (HIVST) can increase uptake, but users’ perspectives on optimal models of distribution and post-test services are uncertain. Results: Distribution and LCT DCEs surveyed 296/329 (90.0%) and 496/594 (83.5%) participants; 81.8% and 84.9% had ever-tested, respectively. The strongest distribution preferences were for: (1) free kits – a $1 increase in the kit price was associated with a disutility (U) of À2.017; (2) door-to-door kit delivery (U = +1.029) relative to collection from public/outreach clinic; (3) telephone helpline for pretest support relative to in-person or no support (U = +0.415); (4) distributors from own/local village (U = +0.145) versus those from external communities. Conclusions: Free HIVST distribution by local volunteers and immediately available ART were the strongest relative preferences identified. There are several HIVST delivery models, including community-based, workplace, public and private sector facility-based, and secondary distribution strategies to sexual partners and peers [4]

Objectives
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.