An assessment of oral HIV self-testing process accuracy and results interpretation among female sex worker peer educators in Kampala, Uganda
Ortblad et al.
Type of approach
Type of assistance
Mixed: Key population and healthcare workers: female sex worker and peer educators
UNAIDS HIV prevalence (2017)
104 female sex workers performed an oral HIVST without supervision while observed by a trained research assistant. Participants were given no pre-test training on kit use and had only the kit's standard instructions to guide them. Study participants were asked to interpret a randomly drawn, anonymous, used oral HIV self-test kit. Self-read sensitivity and specificity were calculated in reference to the trained research assistants' interpretation of the randomly drawn tests and adjusted for the kit's sensitivity and specificity when used and interpreted as intended.
Summary of findings
61% of participants completed the necessary steps for an interpretable test result, but most (96%) struggled with the testing process in some way. Incorrect interpretation of test results was common: 23% of HIV-negative tests were interpreted as HIV-positive while 8% of HIV-positive tests were interpreted as HIV-negative. The self-interpreted real-world sensitivity and specificity were 67.9% (95% CI: 54.5-81.4%) and 67.7% (95% CI: 56.1-79.6%), respectively.
Willingness to pay
Willingness to pay details
Sensitivity 67.9% (95% CI: 54.5-81.4%), specificity 67.7% (95% CI: 56.1-79.6%).
Linkage to prevention, care and treatment