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

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective To 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. Design Prospective cohort Methods Between 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 ≥24 weeks gestation, and self-report on retesting at a 14 week postpartum. Results Overall, 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). Conclusions While most women preferred CB-RDT for maternal retesting, HB-HIVST was acceptable and feasible and may increase retesting coverage and partner testing.
Full text 3,809 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 4 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Objective To 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. Design Prospective cohort

Methods

Between 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 ≥24 weeks gestation, and self-report on retesting at a 14 week postpartum.

Results

Overall, 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).

Conclusions

While most women preferred CB-RDT for maternal retesting, HB-HIVST was acceptable and feasible and may increase retesting coverage and partner testing. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Funding Statement Yes Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: Kenyatta National Hospital/University of Nairobi Ethics and Research Committee #P788/11/2016. University of Washington Human Subjects Division #STUDY00000414. I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes Footnotes Prior presentations: Poster; Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI). Seattle, WA. March 4-7, 2019. Sources of support: This study funded from a University of Washington (UW) Center for AIDS Research (CFAR) New Investigator Award, supported by NIH/NIAID P30-AI027757, in conjunction with research and infrastructure support from NIH/NIAID K01 AI116298 (ALD) and the UW Global Center for Integrated Health of Women, Adolescents, and Children (Global WACh). Data Availability All data and analysis files are available from https://github.com/alisonldrake/OPTHome

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2024) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00