Back

Preferences and uptake of home-based HIV self-testing for maternal retesting in Kenya

Drake, A. L.; Jiang, W.; Kitao, P.; Farid, S.; Richardson, B. A.; Katz, D. A.; Wagner, A. D.; Johnson, C. C.; Matemo, D.; John-Stewart, G.; Kinuthia, J.

2024-03-30 hiv aids
10.1101/2024.03.28.24305050 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveTo compare preferences, uptake, and cofactors for unassisted home-based oral self-testing (HB-HIVST) versus clinic-based rapid diagnostic blood tests (CB-RDT) for maternal HIV retesting. DesignProspective cohort MethodsBetween November 2017 and June 2019, HIV-negative pregnant Kenyan women receiving antenatal care were enrolled and given a choice to retest with HB-HIVST or CB-RDT. Women were asked to retest between 36 weeks gestation and 1 week post-delivery if the last HIV test was <24 weeks gestation or at 6 weeks postpartum if [&ge;]24 weeks gestation, and self-report on retesting at a 14 week postpartum. ResultsOverall, 994 women enrolled and 33% (n=330) selected HB-HIVST. HB-HIVST was selected because it was private (68%), convenient (63%), and offered flexibility in timing of retesting (63%), whereas CB-RDT was selected due to trust of providers to administer the test (77%) and convenience of clinic testing (64%). Among 905 women who reported retesting at follow-up, 135 (15%) used HB-HIVST. Most (94%) who selected CB-RDT retested with this strategy, compared to 39% who selected HB-HIVST retesting with HB-HIVST. HB-HIVST retesting was more common among women with higher household income and those who may have been unable to test during pregnancy (both retested postpartum and delivered <37 weeks gestation) and less common among women who were depressed. Most women said they would retest in the future using the test selected at enrollment (99% HB-HIVST; 93% CB-RDT-RDT). ConclusionsWhile most women preferred CB-RDT for maternal retesting, HB-HIVST was acceptable and feasible and may increase retesting coverage and partner testing.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.