Introduction Social, structural and systems barriers inhibit uptake of HIV testing. HIV self‐testing ( HIVST ) has shown promising uptake by otherwise underserved priority groups including men, young people and first‐time testers. Here, we use characteristics of HIVST kit recipients to investigate delivery to these priority groups during HIVST scale‐up in three African countries. Methods Kit distributors collected individual‐level age, sex and testing history from all clients. These data were aggregated and analysed by country (Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe) for five distribution models: local community‐based distributor ( CBD : door‐to‐door, street and local venues), workplace distribution ( WD ), integration into HIV testing services ( IHTS ), or public health facilities ( IPHF ) and during demand creation for voluntary male medical circumcision ( VMMC ). Used kits were collected and re‐read from CBD and IHTS recipients. Results Between May 2015 and July 2017, 628,705 HIVST kits were distributed in Malawi (172,830), Zambia (190,787) and Zimbabwe (265,091). Community‐based models, the first to be established, accounted for 519,658 (82.7%) of kits distributed, with 275,419 (53.0%) used kits returned. Subsequent model diversification delivered 54,453 (8.7%) test‐kits through IHTS , 23,561 (3.7%) through VMMC , 21,183 (3.4%) through IPHF and 9850 (1.7%) through WD . Men took 294,508 (48.2%) kits, and 263,073 (43.1%) went to young people (16 to 24 years). A higher proportion of male self‐testers (65,577; 22.3%) were first‐time testers than women (54,096; 17.1%) with this apparent in Zimbabwe (16.2% vs. 11.4%), Zambia (25.4% vs. 17.7%) and Malawi (27.9% vs. 25.9%). The highest proportions of first‐time testers were in young (16 to 24 years) and older (>50 years) men (country‐ranges: 18.7% to 35.9% and 13.8% to 26.8% respectively). Most IHTS clients opted for HIVST in preference to standard HTS in each of 12 delivery sites, with those selecting HIVST having lower HIV prevalence, potentially due to self‐selection. Conclusions HIVST delivered at scale using several different models reached a high proportion of men, young people and first‐time testers in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe, some of whom may not have tested otherwise. As men and young people have limited uptake under s...

Introduction HIV self‐testing (HIVST) is recommended by the World Health Organization in addition to other testing modalities to increase uptake of HIV testing, particularly among harder‐to‐reach populations. This study provides the first empirical evidence of the costs of door‐to‐door community‐based HIVST distribution in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Methods HIVST kits were distributed door‐to‐door in 71 sites across Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe from June 2016 to May 2017. Programme expenditures, supplemented by on‐site observation and monitoring and evaluation data were used to estimate total economic and unit costs of HIVST distribution, by input and site. Inputs were categorized into start‐up, capital and recurrent costs. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to assess the impact of key parameters on unit costs. Results In total, 152,671, 103,589 and 93,459 HIVST kits were distributed in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe over 12, 11 and 10 months respectively. Across these countries, 43% to 51% of HIVST kits were distributed to men. The average cost per HIVST kit distributed was US$8.15, US$16.42 and US$13.84 in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe, respectively, with pronounced intersite variation within countries driven largely by site‐level fixed costs. Site‐level recurrent costs were 70% to 92% of full costs and 20% to 62% higher than routine HIV testing services (HTS) costs. Personnel costs contributed from 26% to 52% of total costs across countries reflecting differences in remuneration approaches and country GDP. Conclusions These early door‐to‐door community HIVST distribution programmes show large potential, both for reaching untested populations and for substantial economies of scale as HIVST programmes scale‐up and mature. From a societal perspective, the costs of HIVST appear similar to conventional HTS, with the higher providers’ costs substantially offsetting user costs. Future approaches to minimizing cost and/or maximize testing coverage could include unpaid door‐to‐door community‐led distribution to reach end‐users and integrating HIVST into routine clinical services via direct or secondary distribution strategies with lower fixed costs.

Introduction HIV self‐testing (HIVST) provides couples and individuals with a discreet, convenient and empowering testing option. As with all HIV testing, potential harms must be anticipated and mitigated to optimize individual and public health benefits. Here, we describe social harms (SHs) reported during HIVST implementation in Malawi, and propose a framework for grading and responding to harms, according to their severity. Methods We report findings from six HIVST implementation studies in Malawi (2011 to 2017) that included substudies investigating SH reports. Qualitative methods included focus group discussions, in‐depth interviews and critical incident interviews. Earlier studies used intensive quantitative methods (post‐test questionnaires for intimate partner violence, household surveys, investigation of all deaths in HIVST communities). Later studies used post‐marketing reporting with/without community engagement. Pharmacovigilance methodology (whereby potentially life‐threatening/changing events are defined as “serious”) was used to grade SH severity, assuming more complete passive reporting for serious events. Results During distribution of 175,683 HIVST kits, predominantly under passive SH reporting, 25 serious SHs were reported from 19 (0.011%) self‐testers, including 15 partners in eight couples with newly identified HIV discordancy, and one perinatally infected adolescent. There were no deaths or suicides. Marriage break‐up was the most commonly reported serious SH (sixteen individuals; eight couples), particularly among serodiscordant couples. Among new concordant HIV‐positive couples, blame and frustration was common but rarely (one episode) led to serious SHs. Among concordant HIV‐negative couples, increased trust and stronger relationships were reported. Coercion to test or disclose was generally considered “well‐intentioned” within established couples. Women felt empowered and were assertive when offering HIVST test kits to their partners. Some women who persuaded their partner to test, however, did report SHs, including verbal or physical abuse and economic hardship. Conclusions After more than six years of large‐scale HIVST implementation and in‐depth investigation of SHs in Malawi, we identified approximately one serious reported SH per 10,000 HIVST kits distributed, predominantly break‐up of married serodiscordant couples. Both “active” and “passive” reporting systems identified serious SH events, although with more complete capture by “active” systems. As HIVST is scaled‐up, efforts to support and further optimize community‐led SH monitoring should be prioritized alongside HIVST distribution.

Background Prevention of new HIV infections is a critical public health issue. The highest HIV testing gaps are in men, adolescents 15–19 years old, and adults 40 years and older. Community-based HIV testing services (HTS) can contribute to increased testing coverage and early HIV diagnosis, with HIV self-testing (HIVST) strategies showing promise. Community-based strategies, however, are resource intensive, costly and not widely implemented. A community-led approach to health interventions involves supporting communities to plan and implement solutions to improve their health. This trial aims to determine if community-led delivery of HIVST can improve HIV testing uptake, ART initiation, and broader social outcomes in rural Malawi. Methods The trial uses a parallel arm, cluster-randomised design with group village heads (GVH) and their defined catchment areas randomised (1:1) to community-led HIVST or continue with the standard of the care (SOC). As part of the intervention, informal community health cadres are supported to plan and implement a seven-day HIVST campaign linked to HIV treatment and prevention. Approximately 12 months after the initial campaign, intervention GVHs are randomised to lead a repeat HIVST campaign. The primary outcome includes the proportion of adolescents 15–19 years old who have tested for HIV in their lifetime. Secondary outcomes include recent testing in adults 40 years and older and men; ART initiation; knowledge of HIV prevention; and HIV testing stigma. Outcomes will be measured through cross-sectional surveys and clinic registers. Economic evaluation will determine the cost per person tested, cost per person diagnosed, and incremental cost effectiveness ratio. Discussion To the best of our knowledge, this is the first trial to assess the effectiveness of community-led HTS, which has only recently been enabled by the introduction of HIVST. Community-led delivery of HIVST is a promising new strategy for providing periodic HIV testing to support HIV prevention in rural communities. Further, introduction of HIVST through a community-led framework seems particularly apt, with control over healthcare concurrently devolved to individuals and communities. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov registry (NCT03541382) registered 30 May 2018.

Background Secondary distribution of HIV self-testing (HIVST) kits by patients attending clinic services to their partners could improve the rate of HIV diagnosis. We aimed to investigate whether secondary administration of HIVST kits, with or without an additional financial incentive, via women receiving antenatal care (ANC) or via people newly diagnosed with HIV (ie, index patients) could improve the proportion of male partners tested or the number of people newly diagnosed with HIV. MethodsWe did a three-arm, open-label, pragmatic, cluster-randomised trial of 27 health centres (clusters), eligible if they were a government primary health centre providing ANC, HIV testing, and ART services, across four districts of Malawi. We recruited women (aged ≥18 years) attending their first ANC visit and whose male partner was available, not already taking ART, and not already tested for HIV during this pregnancy (ANC cohort), and people (aged ≥18 years) with newly diagnosed HIV during routine clinic HIV testing who had at least one sexual contact not already known to be HIV-positive (index cohort). Centres were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using a public selection of computer-generated random allocations, to enhanced standard of care (including an invitation for partners to attend HIV testing services), HIVST only, or HIVST plus a US$10 financial incentive for retesting. The primary outcome for the ANC cohort was the proportion of male partners reportedly tested, as ascertained by interview with women in this cohort at day 28. The primary outcome for the index cohort was the geometric mean number of new HIV-positive people identified per facility within 28 days of enrolment, as measured by observed HIV test results. Cluster-level summaries compared intervention with standard of care by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials. gov, NCT03705611. FindingsBetween Sept 8, 2018, and May 2, 2019, nine clusters were assigned to each trial arm, resulting in 4544 eligible women in the ANC cohort (1447 [31•8%] in the standard care group, 1465 [32•2%] in the HIVST only group, and 1632 [35•9%] in HIVST plus financial incentive group) and 708 eligible patients in the index cohort (234 [33•1%] in the standard care group, 169 [23•9%] in the HIVST only group, and 305 [42•9%] in the HIVST plus financial incentive group). 4461 (98•2%) of 4544 eligible women in the ANC cohort and 645 (91•1%) of 708 eligible patients in the index cohort were recruited, of whom 3378 (75•7%) in the ANC cohort and 439 (68•1%) in the index cohort were interviewed after 28 days. In the ANC cohort, the mean proportion of reported partner testing per cluster was 35•0% (SD 10•0) in the standard care group, 73•0% in HIVST only group (13•1, adjusted risk ratio [RR] 1•71, 95% CI 1•48-1•98; p<0•0001), and 65•2% in the HIVST plus financial incentive group (11•6, adjusted RR 1•62, 1•45-1•81; p<0•0001). In the index cohort, the geometric mean number of new HIV-positive sexual partners per cluster was 1•35 (SD 1•62) for the standard care group, 1•91 (...