Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAsiimwe, Stephen
dc.date.accessioned2014-04-24T04:30:19Z
dc.date.available2014-04-24T04:30:19Z
dc.date.issued2013-12
dc.identifier.otherasiimwe_stephen_201312_drph
dc.identifier.urihttp://purl.galileo.usg.edu/uga_etd/asiimwe_stephen_201312_drph
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10724/29709
dc.description.abstractBackground Knowledge of one’s HIV status is a critical step in the cascade of HIV care and prevention. Despite being available, many people at risk of HIV cannot access these services due to low uptake of HIV testing. Unsupervised HIV self-testing (HST) has potential to increase knowledge of HIV status; however, its accuracy is unknown. The main objectives were to determine the accuracy of HST and user preferences for HIV testing in Uganda. Methods We conducted a conjoint survey and performed a non-blinded, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial of unsupervised compared with supervised HST among high-risk fisherfolk in three fishing communities in Uganda between July and September 2013. The study enrolled 246 participants and randomized them in a 1:1 ratio to unsupervised HST or provider-supervised HST. The primary outcome was difference in assay sensitivity and specificity, assessed with one sided Wald’s asymptotic test for non-inferiority with a -15% non-inferiority margin in the intent to treat and per-protocol analyses. Conjoint analyses using a hierarchical Bayes model were used to estimate utilities for HIV testing attributes. Utilities were used to simulate and estimate the shares of preference of 2 scenarios including an oral self HIV test, with price added as a key attribute. Results In an intent-to-treat analysis, the HST sensitivity was 90% in the unsupervised arm and 100% among the provider-supervised, yielding a difference 0f -10% (90% CI: -21%, 1%); non-inferiority was not shown. In a per protocol analysis, the difference in sensitivity was -5.6% (90% CI: -14.4, 3.3%) and did show non-inferiority. Relative importance of HIV test attribute was highest for timeliness and accuracy (30.2%), price (29.7%) and counseling (17.5%) respectively. Given no costs of service, an oral home based self-test had the largest share of preference (24.5%), twice that of the rapid testing done at a public clinic. The share of preference drops to 9.9% when a $2 fee is included. Conclusion Unsupervised HST is feasible in rural Africa and may be non-inferior to provider-supervised HST. Highly accurate HST with oral tests and immediate results offered at no fee with counseling support could increase HIV test uptake.
dc.languageeng
dc.publisheruga
dc.rightspublic
dc.subjectUnsupervised
dc.subjectHIV Testing
dc.subjectAccuracy
dc.subjectRandomized
dc.subjectImplementation
dc.subjectConjoint Analysis
dc.subjectPreferences
dc.titleImplementation effectiveness of HIV self-testing and preferences for HIV testing in Uganda
dc.typeDissertation
dc.description.degreeDrPH
dc.description.departmentCollege of Public Health
dc.description.majorPublic Health
dc.description.advisorChristopher Whalen
dc.description.committeeChristopher Whalen
dc.description.committeeJohn Wurst
dc.description.committeeXiao Song
dc.description.committeeJames Oloya


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record