4.6 Article

HIV self-testing values and preferences among sex workers, fishermen, and mainland community members in Rakai, Uganda: A qualitative study

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 12, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183280

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. World Health Organization, Department of HIV/AIDS
  2. Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health Established Field Placement Awards
  3. Johns Hopkins University Center for AIDS Research
  4. NIH [P30AI094189]
  5. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) [R01MH105313]
  6. NIAID
  7. NCI
  8. NICHD
  9. NHLBI
  10. NIDA
  11. NIMH
  12. NIA
  13. FIC
  14. NIGMS
  15. NIDDK
  16. OAR

Ask authors/readers for more resources

HIV self-testing may encourage greater uptake of testing, particularly among key populations and other high-risk groups, but local community perceptions will influence test uptake and use. We conducted 33 in-depth interviews and 6 focus group discussions with healthcare providers and community members in high-risk fishing communities (including sex workers and fishermen) and lower-risk mainland communities in rural Uganda to evaluate values and preferences around HIV self-testing. While most participants were unfamiliar with HIV self-testing, they cited a range of potential benefits, including privacy, convenience, and ability to test before sex. Concerns focused on the absence of a health professional, risks of careless kit disposal and limited linkage to care. Participants also discussed issues of kit distribution strategies and cost, among others. Ultimately, most participants concluded that benefits outweighed risks. Our findings suggest a potential role for HIV self-testing across populations in these settings, particularly among these key populations. Program implementers will need to consider how to balance HIV self-testing accessibility with necessary professional support.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available