Providing HIV testing services to truck drivers in Africa is crucial but has proven challenging. The introduction of HIV self-testing promises to provide expanded service delivery options for clients, potentially increasing demand for services and expanding coverage – especially important for high-risk and difficult-to-reach populations. This study examines the preferences regarding HIV testing service delivery models, among long distance truck drivers to identify testing services that would appeal to this population. Using a discrete choice experiment, this study examines the drivers of choice regarding HIV counselling and testing among 305 truck drivers recruited from two roadside wellness clinics along major trucking routes in Kenya. Participants made trade-offs between characteristics of HIV testing service delivery models by making hypothetical choices in a series of paired HIV testing scenarios. Conditional logit models were used to identify the HIV testing characteristics driving the selection of preferred scenarios, as well as determine whether preferences interact with individual characteristics – especially HIV testing history. Participants preferred free, provider-administered HIV testing at a roadside clinic, using a finger-prick test, with in-person counselling, undertaken in the shortest possible time. The strongest driver of choice was the cost of the test. Those who had never tested previously preferred oral testing and telephonic counselling, while those who were not regular testers favoured clinic based – over self-testing. The results of this study indicate that for the majority of participants – most of whom had tested before – the existing services offered at roadside clinics were the preferred service delivery model. The introduction of oral self-testing increases the options available to truck drivers and may even improve testing uptake for some, especially among those who have never tested before. However, these findings suggest the impact on HIV testing uptake of introducing oral self-testing may be limited in this population.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) were the first population group offered coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in South Africa because they were considered to be at higher risk of infection and required protecting as they were a critical resource to the health system. In some contexts, vaccine uptake among HCWs has been slow, with several studies citing persistent concerns about vaccine safety and effectiveness. This study aimed to determine vaccine uptake among HCWs in South Africa whilst identifying what drives vaccine hesitancy among HCWs. We adopted a multimethod approach, utilising both a survey and in-depth interviews amongst a sample of HCWs in South Africa. In a sample of 7763 HCWS, 89% were vaccinated, with hesitancy highest among younger HCWs, males, and those working in the private sector. Among those who were hesitant, consistent with the literature, HCWs raised concerns about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. Examining this further, our data revealed that safety and effectiveness concerns were formed due to first-hand witnessing of patients presenting with side-effects, concern over perceived lack of scientific rigor in developing the vaccine, confidence in the body’s immune system to stave off serious illness, and both a general lack of information and distrust in the available sources of information. This study, through discursive narratives, provides evidence elucidating what drives safety and effectiveness concerns raised by HCWs. These concerns will need to be addressed if HCWs are to effectively communicate and influence public behaviour. HCWs are key role players in the national COVID-19 vaccination programme, making it critical for this workforce to be well trained, knowledgeable, and confident if they are going to improve the uptake of vaccines among the general population in South Africa, which currently remains suboptimal.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy poses a threat to the success of vaccination programmes currently being implemented. Concerns regarding vaccine effectiveness and vaccine-related adverse events are potential barriers to vaccination; however, it remains unclear whether tailored messaging and vaccination programmes can influence uptake. Understanding the preferences of key groups, including students, could guide the implementation of youth-targeted COVID-19 vaccination programmes, ensuring optimal uptake. This study examined university staff and students’ perspectives, preferences, and drivers of hesitancy regarding COVID-19 vaccines. A multi-methods approach was used—an online convenience sample survey and discrete choice experiment (DCE)—targeting staff and students at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. The survey and DCE were available for staff and students, and data were collected from 18 November to 24 December 2021. The survey captured demographic characteristics as well as attitudes and perspectives of COVID-19 and available vaccines using modified Likert rating questions adapted from previously used tools. The DCE was embedded within the survey tool and varied critical COVID-19 vaccine programme characteristics to calculate relative utilities (preferences) and determine trade-offs. A total of 1836 staff and students participated in the study (541 staff, 1262 students, 33 undisclosed). A total of 1145 (62%) respondents reported that they had been vaccinated against COVID-19. Vaccination against COVID-19 was less prevalent among students compared with staff (79% of staff vs. 57% of students). The vaccine’s effectiveness (22%), and its safety (21%), ranked as the two dominant reasons for not getting vaccinated. These concerns were also evident from the DCE, with staff and students being significantly influenced by vaccine effectiveness, with participants preferring highly effective vaccines (90% effective) as compared with those listed as being 70% or 50% effective (β = −3.72, 95% CI = −4.39 to −3.04); this characteristic had the strongest effect on preferences of any attribute. The frequency of vaccination doses was also found to have a significant effect on preferences with participants deriving less utility from choice alternatives requiring two initial vaccine doses compared with one dose (β = −1.00, 95% CI = −1.42 to −0.58) or annual boosters compared with none (β = −2.35, 95% CI = −2.85 to −1.86). Notably, an incentive of ZAR 350 (USD 23.28) did have a positive utility (β = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.53) as compared with no incentive. Given the slow take-up of vaccination among youth in South Africa, this study offers valuable insights into the factors that drive hesitancy among this population. Concerns have been raised around the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, although there remains a predilection for efficient services. Respondents were not enthusiastic about the prospect of having to take boosters, and this has played out in the roll-out data. Financial incentives may increase both the uptake of the initial dose of vaccines and see a more favourable response to subsequent boosters. Universities should consider tailored messaging regarding vaccine effectiveness and facilitate access to vaccines, to align services with the stated preferences of staff and students.

healthcare elsewhere. This is of more concern for those at higher STI risk for example the younger, MSM and those with concurrent partners, although higher proportions of younger people reported Chlamydia testing elsewhere. We used unsafe sex as one measure of exposure to risk, which does not take into account characteristics of partner(s) and the wider sexual network. Further improvements are necessary to reach those at-risk, including through effective, diverse service provision.