Accuracy and user-acceptability of HIV self-testing using an oral fluid-based HIV rapid test
Ng et al.
Type of approach
Type of assistance
Mixed: General population and key population
UNAIDS HIV prevalence (2017)
From December 2008 to August 2010, a cross-sectional study was conducted at four HIV test sites in Singapore. Study assessed accuracy and users' ability to perform and interpret self-test results using Quick ADVANCE Rapid HIV 1/2 Antibody Test (OraSure Technologies, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA).
Summary of findings
Excluding invalid tests, self-testing had sensitivity of 97.4% (95% CI 95.1-99.7%) and specificity of 99.9% (95% CI: 99.6-100%). 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. 87% 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. 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.
87.4% of participants would purchase an HIVST
Willingness to pay
Willingness to pay details
Only 28% would pay at least 15USD
Excluding invalid tests, self-testing had sensitivity of 97.4% (95% CI 95.1%-99.7%) and specificity of 99.9% (95% CI: 99.6%-100%); kappa 0.97 (0.95-0.99).
Linkage to prevention, care and treatment