Introduction New HIV testing strategies are needed to reach the United Nations’ 90‐90‐90 target. HIV self‐testing ( HIVST ) can increase uptake, but users’ perspectives on optimal models of distribution and post‐test services are uncertain. We used discrete choice experiments ( DCE s) to explore the impact of service characteristics on uptake along the testing cascade. Methods DCE s are a quantitative survey method that present respondents with repeated choices between packages of service characteristics, and estimate relative strengths of preferences for service characteristics. From June to October 2016, we embedded DCE s within a population‐based survey following door‐to‐door HIVST distribution by community volunteers in two rural Zimbabwean districts: one DCE addressed HIVST distribution preferences; and the other preferences for linkage to confirmatory testing ( LCT ) following self‐testing. Using preference coefficients/utilities, we identified key drivers of uptake for each service and simulated the effect of changes of outreach and static/public clinics’ characteristics on LCT . Results Distribution and LCT DCE s surveyed 296/329 (90.0%) and 496/594 (83.5%) participants; 81.8% and 84.9% had ever‐tested, respectively. The strongest distribution preferences were for: (1) free kits – a $1 increase in the kit price was associated with a disutility (U) of −2.017; (2) door‐to‐door kit delivery (U = +1.029) relative to collection from public/outreach clinic; (3) telephone helpline for pretest support relative to in‐person or no support (U = +0.415); (4) distributors from own/local village (U = +0.145) versus those from external communities. Participants who had never HIV tested valued phone helplines more than those previously tested. The strongest LCT preferences were: (1) immediate antiretroviral therapy ( ART ) availability: U = +0.614 and U = +1.052 for public and outreach clinics, respectively; (2) free services: a $1 user fee increase decreased utility at public (U = −0.381) and outreach clinics (U = −0.761); (3) proximity of clinic (U = −0.38 per hour walking). Participants reported willingness to link to either location; but never‐testers were more averse to LCT . Simulations showed the importance of availability of ART : ART unavailability at public clinics would reduce LCT by 24%. Conclusions Free HIVST distribution by local volunteers and immediately available ...

ObjectiveTo present findings from implementation and scale-up of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) self-testing programmes for female sex workers in Malawi and Zimbabwe, 2013–2018.MethodsIn Zimbabwe, we carried out formative research to assess the acceptability and accuracy of HIV self-testing. During implementation we evaluated sex workers’ preferences for, and feasibility of, distribution of test kits before the programme was scaled-up. In Malawi, we conducted a rapid ethnographic assessment to explore the context and needs of female sex workers and resources available, leading to a workshop to define the distribution approach for test kits. Once distribution was implemented, we conducted a process evaluation and established a system for monitoring social harm.FindingsIn Zimbabwe, female sex workers were able to accurately self-test. The preference study helped to refine systems for national scale-up through existing services for female sex workers. The qualitative data helped to identify additional distribution strategies and mediate potential social harm to women. In Malawi, peer distribution of test kits was the preferred strategy. We identified some incidents of social harm among peer distributors and female sex workers, as well as supply-side barriers to implementation which hindered uptake of testing.ConclusionInvolving female sex workers in planning and ongoing implementation of HIV self-testing is essential, along with strategies to mitigate potential harm. Optimal strategies for distribution and post-test support are context-specific and need to consider existing support for female sex workers and levels of trust and cohesion within their communities.

BackgroundHIV self-testing (HIVST) requires linkage to post-test services to maximise its benefits. We evaluated effect of supply-side incentivisation on linkage following community-based HIVST and evaluated time-trends in facility-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiations.MethodsFrom August 2016 to August 2017 community-based distributors (CBDs) in 38 rural Zimbabwean communities distributed HIVST door-to-door in 19–25 day campaigns. Communities were allocated (1:1) using constrained randomisation to either one-off US$50 remuneration per CBD (non-incentive arm), or US$50 plus US$0.20 incentive per client visiting mobile-outreach services (conditional-incentive arm). The primary outcome, assessed by population survey 6 weeks later, was self-reported uptake of any clinic service, analysed with random-effects logistic regression. Separately, non-randomised difference-in-differences in monthly ART initiations were analysed for three time periods (6 months baseline; HIVST campaign; 3 months after) at public clinics with (40 clinics) and without (124 clinics) HIVST distribution in catchment area.FindingsA total of 445 conditional-incentive CBDs distributed 39 205 HIVST kits (mean/CBD: 88; 95% CI: 85 to 92) and 447 non-incentive CBDs distributed 41 173 kits (mean/CBD: 93; 95% CI: 89 to 96). Survey participation was 7146/8566 (83.4%), with 3593 (50.3%) reporting self-testing including 1305 (18.3%) previously untested individuals. Use of clinic services post-HIVST was similar in conditional-incentive (1062/3698, 28.7%) and non-incentive (1075/3448, 31.2%) arms (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 0.94, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.03). Confirmatory testing by newly diagnosed/untreated HIVST+clients was, however, higher (conditional-incentive: 25/33, 75.8% vs non-incentive: 20/40, 50.0%: aRR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.05 to 2.39). In total, 12 808 ART initiations occurred, with no baseline or postcampaign differences between initiation rates in HIVST versus non-HIVST clinics, but initiation rates increased from 7.31 to 9.59 initiations per month in HIVST clinics during distribution, aRR: 1.27, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.39.ConclusionsCommunity-based HIVST campaigns achieved high testing uptake, temporally associated with increased demand for ART. Small supply-side incentives did not affect general clinic usage but may have increased confirmatory testing for newly diagnosed HIVST positive participants.Trial registration numberPACTR201607001701788.

BackgroundWe compared community-led versus an established community-based HIV self-testing (HIVST) model in rural Zimbabwe using a cluster-randomised trial.MethodsForty village groups were randomised 1:1 using restricted randomisation to community-led HIVST, where communities planned and implemented HIVST distribution for 4 weeks, or paid distribution (PD), where distributors were paid US$50 to distribute kits door-to-door over 4 weeks. Individual level primary outcomes compared household survey responses by arm 4 months post-intervention for: (1) newly diagnosed HIV during/within 4 months following HIVST distribution, (2) linkage to confirmatory testing, pre-exposure prophylaxis or voluntary medical male circumcision during/within 4 months following HIVST distribution. Participants were not masked to allocation; analysis used masked data. Trial analysis used random-effects logistic regression.Distribution costs compared: (1) community-led HIVST, (2) PD HIVST and (3) PD costs when first implemented in 2016/2017.ResultsFrom October 2018 to August 2019, 27 812 and 36 699 HIVST kits were distributed in community-led and PD communities, respectively. We surveyed 11 150 participants and 5683 were in community-led arm. New HIV diagnosis was reported by 211 (3.7%) community-led versus 197 (3.6%) PD arm participants, adjusted OR (aOR) 1.1 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.56); 318 (25.9%) community-led arm participants linked to post-test services versus 361 (23.9%) in PD arm, aOR 1.1 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.49.Cost per HIVST kit distributed was US$6.29 and US$10.25 for PD and community-led HIVST, both lower than 2016/2017 costs for newly implemented PD (US$14.52). No social harms were reported.ConclusionsCommunity-led HIVST can perform as well as paid distribution, with lower costs in the first year. These costs may reduce with programme maturity/learning.Trial registration numberPACTR201811849455568.

No abstract