Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: Because HIV rapid tests are considered for self-testing, this study aims to determine the user acceptability and feasibility of self-testing. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed on 350 systematically sampled participants across 2 Singapore HIV testing centers using the Abbott Determine HIV 1/2 blood sample rapid test (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL). Participants were surveyed on knowledge of and attitudes toward rapid testing. To determine interrater agreement between self-testing and trained personnel testing, participants performed self-testing with visual instructions, followed by trained personnel testing. Ability to identify test outcomes was determined through interpretation of sample test results. RESULTS: Eighty-nine percent of participants preferred testing in private, but most indicated that confidential counseling by trained counselors was necessary. Almost 90% found the kit easy to use and instructions easy to understand. Nevertheless, 85% failed to perform all steps correctly, especially blood sampling, and 56% had invalid results because of incorrect test performance. Interrater agreement between results from self-testing and trained personnel testing had a kappa value of 0.28. Twelve percent could not correctly determine results using sample tests, including 2% and 7% who read positive and negative samples, respectively, incorrectly. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion could not perform self-testing or identify outcomes. Self-testing with the Determine HIV 1/2 kit in Singapore should be deferred.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: