Dataset Information

Who is Reached by HIV Self-Testing? Individual Factors Associated With Self-Testing Within a Community-Based Program in Rural Malawi.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

HIV self-testing (HIVST) is an alternative strategy for reaching population subgroups underserved by available HIV testing services. We assessed individual factors associated with ever HIVST within a community-based program.

Setting

Malawi.

Methods

We conducted secondary analysis of an end line survey administered under a cluster-randomized trial of community-based distribution of HIVST kits. We estimated prevalence differences and prevalence ratios (PRs) stratified by sex for the outcome: self-reported ever HIVST.

Results

Prevalence of ever HIVST was 45.0% (475/1055) among men and 40.1% (584/1456) among women. Age was associated with ever HIVST in both men and women, with evidence of a strong declining trend across categories of age. Compared with adults aged 25-39 years, HIVST was lowest among adults aged 40 years and older for both men [34.4%, 121/352; PR 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.62 to 0.88] and women (30.0%, 136/454; PR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.6 to 0.84). Women who were married, had children, had higher levels of education, or were wealthier were more likely to self-test. Men who had condomless sex in the past 3 months (47.9%, 279/582) reported a higher HIVST prevalence compared with men who did not have recent condomless sex (43.1%, 94/218; adjusted PR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.76). Among men and women, the level of previous exposure to HIV testing and household HIVST uptake was associated with HIVST.

Conclusions

Community-based HIVST reached men, younger age groups, and some at-risk individuals. HIVST was lowest among older adults and individuals with less previous exposure to HIV testing, suggesting the presence of ongoing barriers to HIV testing.

SUBMITTER: Indravudh PP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7611247 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevention of new HIV infections is a critical public health issue. The highest HIV testing gaps are in men, adolescents 15-19 years old, and adults 40 years and older. Community-based HIV testing services (HTS) can contribute to increased testing coverage and early HIV diagnosis, with HIV self-testing (HIVST) strategies showing promise. Community-based strategies, however, are resource intensive, costly and not widely implemented. A community-led approach to health interventions involves supporting communities to plan and implement solutions to improve their health. This trial aims to determine if community-led delivery of HIVST can improve HIV testing uptake, ART initiation, and broader social outcomes in rural Malawi.MethodsThe trial uses a parallel arm, cluster-randomised design with group village heads (GVH) and their defined catchment areas randomised (1:1) to community-led HIVST or continue with the standard of the care (SOC). As part of the intervention, informal community health cadres are supported to plan and implement a seven-day HIVST campaign linked to HIV treatment and prevention. Approximately 12 months after the initial campaign, intervention GVHs are randomised to lead a repeat HIVST campaign. The primary outcome includes the proportion of adolescents 15-19 years old who have tested for HIV in their lifetime. Secondary outcomes include recent testing in adults 40 years and older and men; ART initiation; knowledge of HIV prevention; and HIV testing stigma. Outcomes will be measured through cross-sectional surveys and clinic registers. Economic evaluation will determine the cost per person tested, cost per person diagnosed, and incremental cost effectiveness ratio.DiscussionTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first trial to assess the effectiveness of community-led HTS, which has only recently been enabled by the introduction of HIVST. Community-led delivery of HIVST is a promising new strategy for providing periodic HIV testing to support HIV prevention in rural communities. Further, introduction of HIVST through a community-led framework seems particularly apt, with control over healthcare concurrently devolved to individuals and communities.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov registry ( NCT03541382 ) registered 30 May 2018.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral trials of community-based HIV self-testing (HIVST) provide evidence on the acceptability and feasibility of campaign-style distribution to reach first-time testers, men and adolescents. However, we do not know how many remain unaware of HIVST after distribution campaigns, and who these individuals are. Here we look at factors associated with never having heard of HIVST after community-based campaign-style HIVST distribution in rural Zimbabwe between September 2016 and July 2017.MethodsAnalysis of representative population-based trial survey data collected from 7146 individuals following community-based HIVST distribution to households was conducted. Factors associated with having never heard of HIVST were determined using multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression adjusted for clustered design.ResultsAmong survey participants, 1308 (18.3%) self-reported having never heard of HIVST. Individuals who were between 20 and 60 years old {20-29 years: [aOR = 0.74, 95% CI (0.58-0.95)], 30-39 years: [aOR = 0.56, 95% CI (0.42-0.74)], 40-49 years: [aOR = 0.50, 95% CI (0.36-0.68)], 50-59 years [aOR = 0.58, 95% CI (0.42-0.82)]}, who had attained at least ordinary level education [aOR = 0.51, 95% CI (0.34-0.76)], and who had an HIV test before [aOR = 0.30, 95% CI (0.25-0.37)] were less likely to have never heard of HIVST compared with individuals who were between 16 and 19 years old, who had a lower educational level and who had never tested for HIV before, respectively. In addition, non-household heads or household head representatives [aOR = 1.21, 95% CI (1.01-1.45)] were more likely to report never having heard of HIVST compared to household head and representatives.ConclusionsAround one fifth of survey participants remain unaware of HIVST even after an intensive community-based door-to-door HIVST distribution. Of note, those least likely to have heard of self-testing were younger, less educated and less likely to have tested previously. Household heads appear to play an important role in granting or denying access to self-testing to other household members during door-to-door distribution. Differentiated distribution models are needed to ensure access to all. Trial registration PACTR, PACTR201607001701788. Registered 29 June 2016, https://pactr.samrc.ac.za/ PACTR201607001701788.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Knowledge of HIV status remains below target in sub-Saharan Africa, especially among men and adolescents. HIV self-testing (HIVST) is a novel approach that enables unique distribution strategies, with potential to be highly decentralised and to provide complementary coverage to facility-based testing approaches. However, substantial gaps in evidence remain on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HIVST, particularly in rural settings, and on approaches to facilitate linkage to confirmatory HIV testing, prevention, and treatment services. This protocol describes two cluster-randomized trials (CRT) included within the UNITAID/PSI HIV Self-Testing Africa (STAR) project. METHODS:Two independent CRTs were designed around existing reproductive health programmes in rural Malawi and rural/peri-urban Zambia. Common features include use of constrained randomisation to allocate health clinic catchment areas to either standard HIV testing (SOC) or SOC plus community-based distribution of OraQuick HIV Self Tests (Bethlehem, PA USA, assembled in Thailand) by trained lay distributors selected by the community. Community-based distribution agents will be trained (3-day curriculum) to provide brief demonstration of kit use and interpretation, information and encouragement to access follow up services, and management of social harm. The primary outcome of both CRTs is the proportion of the population aged 16 years and older who tested for HIV within the 12-month intervention period. Secondary outcomes in both trials include lifetime HIV testing, antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation and ART use. Circumcision status among males will be a secondary outcome in Zambia and clinic-level demand for ART will be a secondary outcome in Malawi. Outcomes will be measured using cross-sectional household surveys, and routine data extraction from participating clinics. Costing studies will be used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the intervention arm. Qualitative research will be used to guide distribution and explore reasons for testing and linkage to onward care. DISCUSSION:The STAR-Malawi and STAR-Zambia trials will provide rigorous evidence of whether community-based lay HIVST distribution is an effective and cost-effective approach to increasing coverage of HIV testing and demand for follow-on HIV services in rural and peri-urban communities in sub-Saharan Africa. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov, Malawi: NCT02718274 , 18 March 2016; Zambia: NCT02793804 , 3 June 2016. Protocol date: 21 February 2018.

Project description:BackgroundUndiagnosed HIV infection remains substantial in key population subgroups including adolescents, older adults, and men, driving ongoing transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. We evaluated the impact, safety, and costs of community-led delivery of HIV self-testing (HIVST), aiming to increase HIV testing in underserved subgroups and stimulate demand for antiretroviral therapy (ART).Methods and findingsThis cluster-randomised trial, conducted between October 2018 and July 2019, used restricted randomisation (1:1) to allocate 30 group village head clusters in Mangochi district, Malawi to the community-led HIVST intervention in addition to the standard of care (SOC) or the SOC alone. The intervention involved mobilising community health groups to lead the design and implementation of 7-day HIVST campaigns, with cluster residents (≥15 years) eligible for HIVST. The primary outcome compared lifetime HIV testing among adolescents (15 to 19 years) between arms. Secondary outcomes compared: recent HIV testing (in the last 3 months) among older adults (≥40 years) and men; cumulative 6-month incidence of ART initiation per 100,000 population; knowledge of the preventive benefits of HIV treatment; and HIV testing stigma. Outcomes were measured through a post-intervention survey and at neighboring health facilities. Analysis used intention-to-treat for cluster-level outcomes. Community health groups delivered 24,316 oral fluid-based HIVST kits. The survey included 90.2% (3,960/4,388) of listed participants in the 15 community-led HIVST clusters and 89.2% (3,920/4,394) of listed participants in the 15 SOC clusters. Overall, the proportion of men was 39.0% (3,072/7,880). Most participants obtained primary-level education or below, were married, and reported a sexual partner. Lifetime HIV testing among adolescents was higher in the community-led HIVST arm (84.6%, 770/910) than the SOC arm (67.1%, 582/867; adjusted risk difference [RD] 15.2%, 95% CI 7.5% to 22.9%; p < 0.001), especially among 15 to 17 year olds and boys. Recent testing among older adults was also higher in the community-led HIVST arm (74.5%, 869/1,166) than the SOC arm (31.5%, 350/1,111; adjusted RD 42.1%, 95% CI 34.9% to 49.4%; p < 0.001). Similarly, the proportions of recently tested men were 74.6% (1,177/1,577) and 33.9% (507/1,495) in the community-led HIVST and SOC arms, respectively (adjusted RD 40.2%, 95% CI 32.9% to 47.4%; p < 0.001). Knowledge of HIV treatment benefits and HIV testing stigma showed no differences between arms. Cumulative incidence of ART initiation was respectively 305.3 and 226.1 per 100,000 population in the community-led HIVST and SOC arms (RD 72.3, 95% CI -36.2 to 180.8; p = 0.18). In post hoc analysis, ART initiations in the 3-month post-intervention period were higher in the community-led HIVST arm than the SOC arm (RD 97.7, 95% CI 33.4 to 162.1; p = 0.004). HIVST uptake was 74.7% (2,956/3,960), with few adverse events (0.6%, 18/2,955) and at US$5.70 per HIVST kit distributed. The main limitations include the use of self-reported HIV testing outcomes and lack of baseline measurement for the primary outcome.ConclusionsIn this study, we found that community-led HIVST was effective, safe, and affordable, with population impact and coverage rapidly realised at low cost. This approach could enable community HIV testing in high HIV prevalence settings and demonstrates potential for economies of scale and scope.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT03541382.

Project description:Community HIV strategies are important for early diagnosis and treatment, with new self-care technologies expanding the types of services that can be led by communities. We evaluated mechanisms underlying the impact of community-led delivery of HIV self-testing (HIVST) using mediation analysis. We conducted a cluster-randomised trial allocating 30 group village heads and their catchment areas to the community-led HIVST intervention in addition to the standard of care (SOC) or the SOC alone. The intervention used participatory approaches to engage established community health groups to lead the design and implementation of HIVST campaigns. Potential mediators (individual perceptions of social cohesion, shared HIV concern, critical consciousness, community HIV stigma) and the outcome (HIV testing in the last 3 months) were measured through a post-intervention survey. Analysis used regression-based models to test (i) intervention-mediator effects, (ii) mediator-outcome effects, and (iii) direct and indirect effects. The survey included 972 and 924 participants in the community-led HIVST and SOC clusters, respectively. The community-led HIVST intervention increased uptake of recent HIV testing, with no evidence of indirect effects from changes in hypothesised mediators. However, standardised scores for community cohesion (adjusted mean difference [MD] 0.15, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.32, p = 0.10) and shared concern for HIV (adjusted MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.29, p = 0.09) were slightly higher in the community-led HIVST arm than the SOC arm. Social cohesion, community concern, and critical consciousness also apparently had a quadratic association with recent testing in the community-led HIVST arm, with a positive relationship indicated at lower ranges of each score. We found no evidence of intervention effects on community HIV stigma and its association with recent testing. We conclude that the intervention effect mostly operated directly through community-driven service delivery of a novel HIV technology rather than through intermediate effects on perceived community mobilisation and HIV stigma.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Scaling-up evidence-based behavior change interventions can make a major contribution to meeting the UNAIDS goal of no new HIV infections by 2030. We developed an evidence-based peer group intervention for HIV prevention and testing in Malawi that is ready for wider dissemination. Our innovative approach turns over ownership of implementation to rural communities. We adapted a 3-Step Implementation Model (prepare, roll-out and sustain) for communities to use. Using a hybrid design, we simultaneously evaluate community implementation processes and program effectiveness. METHODS:Three communities in southern Malawi begin implementation in randomly-assigned order using a stepped wedge design. Our evaluation sample size of 144 adults and 144 youth per community provides sufficient power to examine primary outcomes of condom use and HIV testing. Prior to any implementation, the first participants in all three communities are recruited and complete the Wave 1 baseline survey. Waves 2-4 surveys occur after each community completes roll-out. Each community follows the model's three steps. During Prepare, the community develops a plan and trains peer group leaders. During Roll-Out, peer leaders offer the program. During Sustain, the community makes and carries out plans to continue and expand the program and ultimately obtain local funding. We evaluate degree of implementation success (Aim 1) using the community's benchmark scores (e.g, # of peer groups held). We assess implementation process and factors related to success (Aim 2) using repeated interviews and observations, benchmarks from Aim 1 and fidelity assessments. We assess effectiveness of the peer group intervention when delivered by communities (Aim 3) using multi-level regression models to analyze data from repeated surveys. Finally, we use mixed methods analyses of all data to assess feasibility, acceptability and sustainability (Aim 4). DISCUSSION:The project is underway, and thus far the first communities have enthusiastically begun implementation. We have had to make several modifications along the way, such as moving from rapid-tests of STIs to symptoms screening by a nurse due to problems with test reliability and availability. If successful, results will provide a replicable evidence-based model for future community implementation of this and other health interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinical Trials.gov NCT02765659 Registered May 6, 2016.