↓ Skip to main content

“I think it is right”: a qualitative exploration of the acceptability and desired future use of oral swab and finger-prick HIV self-tests by lay users in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
“I think it is right”: a qualitative exploration of the acceptability and desired future use of oral swab and finger-prick HIV self-tests by lay users in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
Published in
BMC Research Notes, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-2810-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucia Knight, Tawanda Makusha, Jeanette Lim, Roger Peck, Miriam Taegtmeyer, Heidi van Rooyen

Abstract

The uptake of HIV testing has increased in sub-Saharan Africa over the past three decades. However, the proportion of people aware of their HIV status remains lower than required to change the pandemic. HIV self-testing (HIVST) may meet this gap. Assessment of readiness for and the acceptability of HIVST by lay users in South Africa is limited. This paper presents results from a formative study designed to assess the perceived usability and acceptability of HIVST among lay users using several self-test prototypes. Fifty lay users were purposively selected from rural and peri-urban KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Acceptability of HIVST was assessed using a simple post-test quantitative assessment tool addressing confidence, ease-of-use, intended future use and willingness to pay. In-depth qualitative interviews explored what participants felt about the HIVST and why, their willingness to recommend and how much they would pay for a test. The key finding is that there is high acceptability regardless of self-test prototype. Acceptability is framed by two domains: usability and perceived need. Perceived usability was explored through perceived ease of use, which, regardless of actual correct usage, was reported by many of the respondents. Acceptability is influenced by perceived need, expressed by many who felt that the need for the self-test to protect privacy and autonomy. Ease of access and widespread availability of the test, not at a significant cost, were also important factors. Many participants would recommend self-test use to others and also indicated that they would choose to conduct the test again if it was free while some also indicated being willing to buy a test. The positive response and readiness amongst lay users for an HIVST in this context prototype suggests that there would be a ready and willing market for HIVST. For scalability and sustainability usability, including access and availability that are here independent indications of acceptability, should be considered. So too should the desire for future use, as an additional factor pointing to acceptability. The results show high acceptability in all of these areas domains and a general interest in HIVST amongst lay users in a community in KwaZulu-Natal.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 27%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Other 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 10 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 20%
Social Sciences 9 14%
Psychology 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 14 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 October 2017.
All research outputs
#5,524,482
of 17,144,747 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#974
of 3,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,401
of 282,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,144,747 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,640 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 282,829 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them