“Take an HIV Test Kit Home”: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Among HIV High‐risk Urban ED Patients

Kim, Angie S; Patel, Anuj V.; Gaydos, Charlotte A.; Jett-Goheen, Mary; Abrams, Samuel M.; Latkin, Carl A.; Rothman, Richard E.; Hsieh, Yu‐Hsiang

doi:10.1111/acem.13968

Cited by 5 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The seven included reports were published between 2001 and 2020 and all were conducted in the United States of America (USA) from a single emergency care setting in Baltimore, Maryland. [37][38][39][40][41][42][43] The cumulative sample across the seven reports was 1942 subjects. Three reports were RCTs (42.9%), 40,41,43 and the remaining four (57.1%) were prospective cross-sectional designs.…”

Section: Characteristics Of Included Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[37][38][39][40][41][42][43] The cumulative sample across the seven reports was 1942 subjects. Three reports were RCTs (42.9%), 40,41,43 and the remaining four (57.1%) were prospective cross-sectional designs. All studies enrolled subjects ≥18 years of age.…”

Section: Characteristics Of Included Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All studies enrolled subjects ≥18 years of age. Two reports enrolled subjects determined to be at increased or high risk for HIV, 40,41 and two enrolled subjects who had previously declined provider-delivered HIV testing (Table 1). 40,43 HIV-ST and provider-delivered testing approaches varied across studies, and no data on HIVST costs to health systems or patients were provided in any of the reports (Table S2).…”

Section: Characteristics Of Included Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Men accounted for a range of 34.0%-47.6% of participants in reports that provided sex-specific data. [37][38][39][41][42][43] Oral fluid-based HIV assays were used as the self-testing modality, with three using the OraQuick Advance HIV1/2 test ™ , 37,38,42 two using the OraQuick In-Home HIV Test ™ , 41,43 and two studies not reporting the specific assay used. 39,40 One report also used a blood-based HIV test (Uni-Gold test ™ ) in addition to the oral assay (Table 1).…”

Section: Characteristics Of Included Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The control subjects received an informational pamphlet on the importance of HIV testing and the location for nearby testing facilities but were not provided access to HIVST in the ED. 41,43 In the RCT by Kim et al, 64.7% of subjects in the HIVST arm reported HIV testing at 3 months of follow-up versus 18.9% of those randomized to the control arm. 41 For the RCT by Patel et al, 48.3% of participants in the HIVST arm completed self-testing for HIV at 1-month follow-up as compared to 5.7% in the control arm.…”

Section: Hiv Self-testing Efficacymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Acceptability and uptake of HIV self‐testing in emergency care settings: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Aluisio

Lim

Tang

et al. 2021

Academic Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Emergency departments (ED) interface with large numbers of patients that are often missed by conventional HIV testing approaches. ED-based HIV selftesting (HIVST) is an innovative engagement approach which has potential for testing gains among populations that have failed to be reached. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated acceptability and uptake of HIVST, as compared to standard provider-delivered testing approaches, among patients seeking care in ED settings.Methods: Six electronic databases were systematically searched (Dates: January 1990-May 2021). Reports with data on HIVST acceptability and/or testing uptake in ED settings were included. Two reviewers identified eligible records (κ= 0.84); quality was assessed using formalized criteria. Acceptability and testing uptake metrics were summarized, and pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models with assessments of heterogeneity.Results: Of 5773 records identified, seven met inclusion criteria. The cumulative sample was 1942 subjects, drawn from three randomized control trials (RCTs) and four cross-sectional studies. Four reports assessed HIVST acceptability. Pooled acceptability of self-testing was 92.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 88.0%-97.1%). Data from two RCTs demonstrated that HIVST significantly increased testing uptake as compared to standard programs (risk ratio [RR] = 4.41, 95% CI: 1.95-10.10, I 2 = 25.8%).Overall, the quality of evidence was low (42.9%) or very low (42.9%), with one report of moderate quality (14.2%). Conclusions:Available data indicate that HIVST may be acceptable and may increase testing among patients seeking emergency care, suggesting that expanding ED-based HIVST programs could enhance HIV diagnosis. However, given the limitations of the reports, additional research is needed to better inform the evidence base.

show abstract