IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0045168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accuracy and User-Acceptability of HIV Self-Testing Using an Oral Fluid-Based HIV Rapid Test

Author

Listed:
  • Oon Tek Ng
  • Angela L Chow
  • Vernon J Lee
  • Mark I C Chen
  • Mar Kyaw Win
  • Hiok Hee Tan
  • Arlene Chua
  • Yee Sin Leo

Abstract

Background: The United States FDA approved an over-the-counter HIV self-test, to facilitate increased HIV testing and earlier linkage to care. We assessed the accuracy of self-testing by untrained participants compared to healthcare worker (HCW) testing, participants’ ability to interpret sample results and user-acceptability of self-tests in Singapore. Methodology/Principal Findings: A cross-sectional study, involving 200 known HIV-positive patients and 794 unknown HIV status at-risk participants was conducted. Participants (all without prior self-test experience) performed self-testing guided solely by visual instructions, followed by HCW testing, both using the OraQuick ADVANCE Rapid HIV 1/2 Antibody Test, with both results interpreted by the HCW. To assess ability to interpret results, participants were provided 3 sample results (positive, negative, and invalid) to interpret. Of 192 participants who tested positive on HCW testing, self-testing was positive in 186 (96.9%), negative in 5 (2.6%), and invalid in 1 (0.5%). Of 794 participants who tested negative on HCW testing, self-testing was negative in 791 (99.6%), positive in 1 (0.1%), and invalid in 2 (0.3%). Excluding invalid tests, self-testing had sensitivity of 97.4% (95% CI 95.1% to 99.7%) and specificity of 99.9% (95% CI: 99.6% to 100%). When interpreting results, 96%, 93.1% and 95.2% correctly read the positive, negative and invalid respectively. There were no significant demographic predictors for false negative self-testing or wrongly interpreting positive or invalid sample results as negative. Eighty-seven percent would purchase the kit over-the-counter; 89% preferred to take HIV tests in private. 72.5% and 74.9% felt the need for pre- and post-test counseling respectively. Only 28% would pay at least USD15 for the test. Conclusions/Significance: Self-testing was associated with high specificity, and a small but significant number of false negatives. Incorrectly identifying model results as invalid was a major reason for incorrect result interpretation. Survey responses were supportive of making self-testing available.

Suggested Citation

  • Oon Tek Ng & Angela L Chow & Vernon J Lee & Mark I C Chen & Mar Kyaw Win & Hiok Hee Tan & Arlene Chua & Yee Sin Leo, 2012. "Accuracy and User-Acceptability of HIV Self-Testing Using an Oral Fluid-Based HIV Rapid Test," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-8, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0045168
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045168
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0045168
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0045168&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0045168?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0045168. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.