Dataset Information

Reaching Absent and Refusing Individuals During Home-Based HIV Testing Through Self-Testing-at What Cost?

ABSTRACT: Introduction: In the HOSENG trial (NCT03598686), the secondary distribution of oral self-tests for persons absent or refusing to test during a home-based HIV testing campaign in rural Lesotho resulted in an increase in testing coverage of 21% compared to a testing campaign without secondary distribution. This study aims to determine the per patient costs of both HOSENG trial arms. Method: We conducted a micro-costing study to estimate the cost of home-based HIV testing with (HOSENG intervention arm) and without (HOSENG control arm) secondary self-test distribution from a provider's perspective. A mixture of top-down and bottom-up costing was used. We estimated both the financial and economic per patient costs of each possible testing cascade scenario. The costs were adjusted to 2018 US$. Results: The overall provider cost for delivering the home-based HIV testing with secondary distribution was US$36,481 among the 4,174 persons enumerated and 3,094 eligible for testing in the intervention villages compared to US$28,620 for 3,642 persons enumerated and 2,727 eligible for testing in the control. The cost per person eligible for testing was US$11.79 in the intervention vs. US$10.50 in the control. This difference was mainly driven by the cost of distributed oral self-tests. The cost per person tested was, however, lower in intervention villages (US$15.70 vs. US$22.15) due to the higher testing coverage achieved through self-test distribution. The cost per person confirmed new HIV+ was US$889.79 in the intervention and US$753.17 in the control. Conclusion: During home-based HIV testing in Lesotho, the secondary distribution of self-tests for persons absent or refusing to test during the visit reduced the costs per person tested and thus presents a promising add-on for such campaigns. Trial Registration:https://ClinicalTrials.gov/, identifier: NCT03598686.

SUBMITTER: Amstutz A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8276095 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:HIV-testing coverage remains below the targeted 90% despite efforts and resources invested. Home-based HIV-testing is a key approach endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO), especially to reach individuals who might not seek testing otherwise. Although acceptance of testing during such campaigns is high, coverage remains low due to absent household members. This cluster-randomized trial aims to assess increase in testing coverage using oral HIV self-testing (HIVST) among individuals who are absent or decline testing during home-based HIV-testing. METHODS:The HOSENG (HOme-based SElf-testiNG) trial is a cluster-randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial in two districts of Lesotho, Southern Africa. Clusters are stratified by district, village size, and village access to the nearest health facility. Cluster eligibility criteria include: village is in catchment area of one of the study facilities, village authority provides consent, and village has a registered, capable, and consenting village health worker (VHW). In intervention clusters, HIV self-tests are provided for eligible household members who are absent or decline HIV-testing in the presence of the campaign team. In control clusters, standard of care for absent and refusing individuals applies, i.e., referral to a health facility. The primary outcome is HIV-testing coverage among individuals aged 12?years or older within 120?days after enrollment. Secondary objectives include HIV-testing coverage among other age groups, and uptake of the different testing modalities. Statistical analyses will be conducted and reported in line with CONSORT guidelines. The HOSENG trial is linked to the VIBRA (Village-Based Refill of ART) trial. Together, they constitute the GET ON (GETting tOwards Ninety) research project. DISCUSSION:The HOSENG trial tests whether oral HIVST may be an add-on during door-to-door testing campaigns towards achieving optimal testing coverage. The provision of oral self-test kits, followed up by VHWs, requires little additional human resources, finances and logistics. If cost-effective, this approach should inform home-based HIV-testing policies not only in Lesotho, but in similar high-prevalence settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, (ID: NCT03598686 ). Registered on 25 July 2018. More information is available at www.getonproject.wordpress.com .

Project description:ContextGay, bisexual, and men who have sex with men (MSM) are disproportionately affected by the HIV/AIDS epidemic more than any other group. In New York State (NYS) outside of New York City (NYC), MSM accounted for 57% of new HIV/AIDS diagnoses in 2017. HIV/AIDS home testing initiatives have been effective at getting priority populations tested for HIV.ObjectivesThe NYS Department of Health (NYSDOH) administered the HIV Home Test Giveaway (HHTG) program through social media and mobile applications popular among the priority populations to (1) promote HIV screening among gay and bisexual men, MSM, transgender (TG), and gender queer/gender nonconforming (GNC) individuals who have sex with men, and (2) identify individuals with undiagnosed HIV infection.Design/settingThe NYSDOH recruited participants from NYS (excluding NYC) through social media campaigns between November 2016 and January 2018. Interested individuals were directed to an online eligibility survey. Eligible participants received a coupon via e-mail for a free HIV self-test (HIVST) kit through the manufacturer's Web site. Eligible participants received a $20 to $25 Amazon online gift card if they completed a voluntary online follow-up survey regarding their test results, experiences with the HHTG, and HIV/AIDS risk behaviors. Participants were also able to request assistance from the NYSDOH with further testing and various prevention and supportive services.ParticipantsIn total, 6190 individuals participated and 3197 (52%) were eligible and received a coupon. Of the eligible, 2022 (63%) redeemed coupons for HIVST.ResultsAmong eligible participants, 976 (31%) reported having never been tested for HIV. On the follow-up survey, 922 (29%) participants reported having used the HIVST kit for themselves; 203 (22%) were first-time testers; and 7 (0.8%) tested HIV reactive. Of the follow-up survey participants, 761 (59%) requested assistance with various services.ConclusionsMedia campaigns were effective in promoting HIV testing among priority populations and reaching individuals who have never been tested for HIV.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Globally only 79% of adults living with HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) know their status and men in sub-Saharan Africa are considered a particularly hard-to-reach population for HIV testing. Home-based HIV couple testing during the antenatal period is a safe and effective method that has been used to test male partners of pregnant women. The goal of this qualitative study was to identify elements that made couple testing successful and describe important characteristics of this home-based intervention from couples' perspectives. METHODS:Couples who received scheduled home-based couple testing during pregnancy in Kisumu, Kenya, were purposively sampled based on HIV status from January to May 2015. An interviewer administered all of the in-depth interviews and two coders were directly involved in the data analysis and reconciled codes several times in the process. RESULTS:Twenty-one couples were enrolled: 9 concordant HIV-negative couples, 8 HIV discordant couples, 3 HIV concordant HIV-positive couples, and 1 whose concordance status was unknown. Median age at the time of home-based couple testing was 24 and 28 years for women and men, respectively. Median relationship duration was 3 years and couples had a median of two pregnancies. The major themes that emerged were that home-based couple testing 1) removed the female burden of requesting couple testing, 2) overcame logistical barriers associated with clinic-based testing, 3) encouraged participants to overcome their fear of testing and disclosure, 4) provided privacy in the home, and 5) provided quality time with the health advisors. Importantly, some women appreciated individual testing at the clinic before couple testing and some couples preferred skilled, anonymous health advisors delivering the intervention rather than known community health workers. CONCLUSIONS:The results of this qualitative study suggest that home-based couple testing during pregnancy overcame many of the barriers that limit men's access to and uptake of clinic-based testing. It encouraged participants to overcome their fear of testing and disclosure through a setting that afforded privacy and quality time with skilled health advisors. These qualitative results may help design effective partner and couple HIV testing programs in the antenatal setting and alongside or within other assisted partner notification services. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov registry: NCT01784783. Registered prospectively on June 15, 2012.

Project description:IntroductionStrategies employing a single rapid diagnostic test (RDT) such as HIV self-testing (HIVST) or "test for triage" (T4T) are proposed to increase HIV testing programme impact. Current guidelines recommend serial testing with two or three RDTs for HIV diagnosis, followed by retesting with the same algorithm to verify HIV-positive status before anti-retroviral therapy (ART) initiation. We investigated whether clients presenting to HIV testing services (HTS) following a single reactive RDT must undergo the diagnostic algorithm twice to diagnose and verify HIV-positive status, or whether a diagnosis with the setting-specific algorithm is adequate for ART initiation.MethodsWe calculated (1) expected number of false-positive (FP) misclassifications per 10,000 HIV negative persons tested, (2) positive predictive value (PPV) of the overall HIV testing strategy compared to the WHO recommended PPV ?99%, and (3) expected cost per FP misclassified person identified by additional verification testing in a typical low-/middle-income setting, compared to the expected lifetime ART cost of $3000. Scenarios considered were as follows: 10% prevalence using two serial RDTs for diagnosis, 1% prevalence using three serial RDTs, and calibration using programmatic data from Malawi in 2017 where the proportion of people testing HIV positive in facilities was 4%.ResultsIn the 10% HIV prevalence setting with a triage test, the expected number of FP misclassifications was 0.86 per 10,000 tested without verification testing and the PPV was 99.9%. In the 1% prevalence setting, expected FP misclassifications were 0.19 with 99.8% PPV, and in the Malawi 2017 calibrated setting the expected misclassifications were 0.08 with 99.98% PPV. The cost per FP identified by verification testing was $5879, $3770, and $24,259 respectively. Results were sensitive to assumptions about accuracy of self-reported reactive results and whether reactive triage test results influenced biased interpretation of subsequent RDT results by the HTS provider.ConclusionsDiagnosis with the full algorithm following presentation with a reactive triage test is expected to achieve PPV above the 99% threshold. Continuing verification testing prior to ART initiation remains recommended, but HIV testing strategies involving HIVST and T4T may provide opportunities to maintain quality while increasing efficiency as part of broader restructuring of HIV testing service delivery.

Dataset Information

Reaching Absent and Refusing Individuals During Home-Based HIV Testing Through Self-Testing-at What Cost?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets