4.4 Article

Home collection for frequent HIV testing: acceptability of oral fluids, dried blood spots and telephone results

Journal

AIDS
Volume 14, Issue 12, Pages 1819-1828

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00002030-200008180-00018

Keywords

dried blood spots; early HIV detection; HIV diagnostic tests; home specimen collection; oral fluids; telephone counseling

Funding

  1. PHS HHS [N01-A1-45200, N01-A1-35176] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To assess the feasibility and acceptability of bimonthly home oral fluid (OF) and dried blood spot (DBS) collection for HIV testing among high-risk individuals. Design: A total of 241 participants [including men who have sex with men (MSM), injecting drug users (IDU), and women at heterosexual risk] were recruited from a randomly selected subset of study participants enrolled at four sites in the HIV Network for Prevention Trials (HIVNET) cohort, and assigned at random to bimonthly home collection of OF or DBS specimens over a 6 month interval. Participants could select telephone calls or clinic visits to receive HIV test results. Methods: Bimonthly specimens were tracked for adherence to the schedule, were evaluated for adequacy for testing, and tested using antibody assays and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for DBS. The acceptability of bimonthly home OF and DBS collection and telephone counseling was assessed in an end-of-study questionnaire. Results: The laboratory received 96 and 90% of expected OF and DBS specimens, respectively; 99% of each specimen type was adequate for testing. Almost all (95%) participants chose results disclosure by telephone. The majority of participants (85%) reported that bimonthly testing did not make them worry more about HIV, and almost all (98%) judged that with bimonthly testing their risk behavior remained the same (77%) or became less risky (21%).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available