Augustine Choko of the
Malawi-Liverpool Wellcome Clinical Research Programme presented the
results of a study designed to test the acceptability of using an
oral fluid-sampling HIV test kit in private, with supervision.
The study was conducted
in Blantyre, Malawi. Participants were randomly selected from 60
households and from peer groups such as churches (n = 260). These
individual were offered self-testing plus confirmatory HIV testing
and counselling; standard HIV testing and counselling alone; or no
test.
A total of 72
individuals were also recruited to focus groups where the
acceptability, merits and drawbacks of self-testing at home were
discussed.
There was a high degree
of willingness to participate in the research, and 93% (293) of those
randomly selected as eligible agreed to join the study. A slight
majority (52%) were women, and 57% had previously taken an HIV test.
However, only 24% had been tested in the last twelve months.
Prevalence of
undiagnosed HIV was high. Only 50% of the 48 patients who tested
HIV-positive during the study were previously aware of their
infection status.
Most patients (93%)
opted to self-test for HIV. These individuals were given a brief
demonstration of how to perform the oral test. Nearly all (99%) of
participants said that the test was “not at all hard to do”.
However, 26 individuals
(10%) made errors, and a further 10% needed extra help. The chief
errors were removing the test kit from the developer fluid too
early, having difficulty in taking an oral swab, and difficulty in
reading the results.
All the study
participants said that they would recommend home testing to their
family or friends, and 99% told the investigators that they were
“very likely” to use home testing again in the future. There was
also a high degree of acceptance of the actual test result: 96.5%
believed the result of the test was right first time, even before
they underwent confirmatory blood testing. (Two false-negative
results were identified through confirmatory testing.)
A clear majority (56%)
said that they would prefer their next HIV test to be a self-test.
Participants were also
asked about their preferences for the distribution of self-testing
kits. Local distribution was significantly more acceptable than the
provision of self-testing by a neighbour (95% vs. 48%, p = 0.001).
The focus group
discussions showed that self-testing at home was valued because of
its privacy. Other perceived advantages included the ease of engaging
partners and other family members in testing, fitting testing into
busy routines, and control over the testing environment.
But there were some
reservations about self-testing, and concern was expressed about the
provision of support to individuals who tested HIV-positive.
Participants were asked to agree or disagree with a number of
statements, including “These days most people know enough about HIV
so there is no need for counselling”. Just 10% of participants
agreed with this statement, and only 28% thought that a telephone
hotline was sufficient to provide support after testing.
“What is hard to
convey is just how excited our participants were. We had to fight off
lots of requests for extra test kits,” said Augustine Choko.
Women were particularly
enthusiastic about self-testing, said Choko, because they no longer
felt that they were bearing the burden of HIV testing in a
relationship. Previously men has relied on the results of HIV tests
undertaken by their partners in the PMTCT programme to determine
their own HIV status, leaving women vulnerable if they tested
negative to a partner who refused to find out his own status.
“If you have kits at
home it will be easy to convince him to test with you,” one woman
told a focus group.
The convenience of
self-testing was also rated highly.
“You don't have to
catch a minibus and be on the queue for a long time,” said one
woman, while another remarked: “You can self-test and continue
doing other chores like cooking while waiting for the result.”