8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Stated and revealed preferences for HIV testing: can oral self-testing help to increase uptake amongst truck drivers in Kenya?

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Long-distance truck drivers in Africa are particularly at risk of HIV acquisition and offering self-testing could help increase testing coverage in this hard-to-reach population. The aims of this study are twofold: (1) to examine the preference structures of truck drivers in Kenya regarding HIV testing service delivery models and what they mean for the roll-out of HIV self-testing, and (2) to compare the preference data collected from a hypothetical discrete choice experiment with the actual choices made by participants in the intervention arm of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) who were offered HIV testing choices.

          Methods

          Using data from 150 truck drivers, this paper examines whether the stated preferences regarding HIV testing in a discrete choice experiment predict the actual test selected when offered HIV testing choices. Conditional logit models were used for main effects analysis and stratified models were run by HIV testing choices made in the trial to assess if the attributes preferred differed by test chosen.

          Results

          The strongest driver of stated preference among all participants was cost. However, two preferences diverged between those who actually chose self-testing in the RCT and those who chose a provider administered test: the type of test ( p < 0.001) and the type of counselling (p = 0.003). Self-testers preferred oral-testing to finger-prick testing (OR 1.26 p = 0.005), while non-self-testers preferred finger-prick testing (OR 0.56 p < 0.001). Non-self-testers preferred in-person counselling to telephonic counselling (OR 0.64 p < 0.001), while self-testers were indifferent to type of counselling. Preferences in both groups regarding who administered the test were not significant.

          Conclusions

          We found stated preference structures helped explain the actual choices participants made regarding the type of HIV testing they accepted. Offering oral testing may be an effective strategy for increasing willingness to test among certain groups of truck drivers. However, the importance of in-person counselling and support, and concern that an oral test cannot detect HIV infection may mean that continuing to offer finger-prick testing at roadside wellness centres will best align with the preferences of those already attending these facilities. More research is needed to explore whether who administers the HIV test (provider versus self) makes any difference.

          Trial registration

          This trial is registered with the Registry for International Development Impact Evaluations ( RIDE ID#55847d64a454f).

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Faking it: Social desirability response bias in self-report research

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Accuracy and User-Acceptability of HIV Self-Testing Using an Oral Fluid-Based HIV Rapid Test

            Background The United States FDA approved an over-the-counter HIV self-test, to facilitate increased HIV testing and earlier linkage to care. We assessed the accuracy of self-testing by untrained participants compared to healthcare worker (HCW) testing, participants’ ability to interpret sample results and user-acceptability of self-tests in Singapore. Methodology/Principal Findings A cross-sectional study, involving 200 known HIV-positive patients and 794 unknown HIV status at-risk participants was conducted. Participants (all without prior self-test experience) performed self-testing guided solely by visual instructions, followed by HCW testing, both using the OraQuick ADVANCE Rapid HIV 1/2 Antibody Test, with both results interpreted by the HCW. To assess ability to interpret results, participants were provided 3 sample results (positive, negative, and invalid) to interpret. Of 192 participants who tested positive on HCW testing, self-testing was positive in 186 (96.9%), negative in 5 (2.6%), and invalid in 1 (0.5%). Of 794 participants who tested negative on HCW testing, self-testing was negative in 791 (99.6%), positive in 1 (0.1%), and invalid in 2 (0.3%). Excluding invalid tests, self-testing had sensitivity of 97.4% (95% CI 95.1% to 99.7%) and specificity of 99.9% (95% CI: 99.6% to 100%). When interpreting results, 96%, 93.1% and 95.2% correctly read the positive, negative and invalid respectively. There were no significant demographic predictors for false negative self-testing or wrongly interpreting positive or invalid sample results as negative. Eighty-seven percent would purchase the kit over-the-counter; 89% preferred to take HIV tests in private. 72.5% and 74.9% felt the need for pre- and post-test counseling respectively. Only 28% would pay at least USD15 for the test. Conclusions/Significance Self-testing was associated with high specificity, and a small but significant number of false negatives. Incorrectly identifying model results as invalid was a major reason for incorrect result interpretation. Survey responses were supportive of making self-testing available.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare.

              To investigate the impact of health policies on individual well-being, estimate the value to society of new interventions or policies, or predict demand for healthcare, we need information about individuals' preferences. Economists usually use market-based data to analyze preferences, but such data are limited in the healthcare context. Discrete choice experiments are a potentially valuable tool for elicitation and analysis of preferences and thus, for economic analysis of health and health programs. This paper reviews the use of discrete choice experiments to measure consumers' preferences for health and healthcare. The paper provides an overview of the approach and discusses issues that arise when using discrete choice experiments to assess individuals' preferences for health and healthcare.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +27-31-260-2592 , straussm@ukzn.ac.za
                +27-31-260-2592 , Georgeg@ukzn.ac.za
                +1-646-774-6937 , jem57@cumc.columbia.edu
                +1-646-364-9610 , matthew.l.romo@gmail.com
                +254-20-262-8578 , eva@northstar-alliance.org
                +254-20-262-8578 , eston@northstar-alliance.org
                +254-20-262-8578 , jacob.okoth.odhiambo@northstar-alliance.org
                +27-31-260-2592 , Govenderk2@ukzn.ac.za
                +1-646-364-9610 , elizabethakelvin@gmail.com
                Journal
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2458
                6 November 2018
                6 November 2018
                2018
                : 18
                : 1231
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0723 4123, GRID grid.16463.36, Health Economics and HIV and AIDS Research Division, , University of KwaZulu-Natal, ; 4th Floor J-Block, University of KwaZulu-Natal Westville Campus, University Drive, Durban, 4041 South Africa
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0000 8499 1112, GRID grid.413734.6, Division of Gender, Sexuality and Health, Department of Psychiatry, HIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies, , New York State Psychiatric Institute & Columbia University, ; 1051 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10032 USA
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2188 3760, GRID grid.262273.0, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy and Institute for Implementation Science in Population Health, , City University of New York, ; 55 West 125th Street, New York, NY 10027 USA
                [4 ]North Star Alliance, PO Box 165, Nairobi, 00202 Kenya
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7849-8812
                Article
                6122
                10.1186/s12889-018-6122-1
                6219162
                30400898
                89a99b8b-f8d7-4fd6-b26f-b7fa49443ec6
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 26 April 2018
                : 15 October 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: International initiative for impact evaluation
                Award ID: 3ie# TW2.2.06
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) to the HIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies at the New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University
                Award ID: P30-MH43520
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Public health
                hiv,hiv testing,truck drivers,discrete choice experiment,kenya
                Public health
                hiv, hiv testing, truck drivers, discrete choice experiment, kenya

                Comments

                Comment on this article