↓ Skip to main content

Which user errors matter during HIV self-testing? A qualitative participant observation study of men who have sex with men (MSM) in China

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 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
Which user errors matter during HIV self-testing? A qualitative participant observation study of men who have sex with men (MSM) in China
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-6007-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chongyi Wei, Li Yan, Jianjun Li, Xiaoyou Su, Sheri Lippman, Hongjing Yan

Abstract

The World Health Organization recommends HIV self-testing (HIVST) as an additional approach to HIV testing services. We aimed to assess to what extent HIVST was conducted correctly by Chinese men who have sex with men (MSM) and to identify user errors during the HIVST process in order to inform strategies to optimize its use and thus reduce the number of undiagnosed HIV infections. Between February and March 2017, participant observations were conducted with 27 MSM in an east coastal city in China. In the presence, but without the assistance or orientation, of a trained HIV testing counselor, participants conducted HIVST (either finger prick or oral fluid) according to manufacturers' instructions. Errors were recorded on checklists during direct observation and double checked afterwards by reviewing video files of the observations. Overall, 12 participants (44.4%) had invalid test results due to user errors. Just five (18.5%) did not make any errors during the entire HIVST process. Failure to follow all the steps based on manufactures' instructions was a common problem for both finger prick and oral fluid self-testers. For finger prick users, most errors occurred during the stage of collecting the specimen. In contrast, oral fluid users made most errors during the stage of testing the collected specimen. Although we found that user errors were common among MSM administering HIVST, this should not deter or discourage routine implementation and scale-up of HIVST as strategies can be implemented to facilitate the correct use of HIVST. This study was a part of a clinical trial: ClinicalTrials.gov (# NCT02999243 ); Registration date: December 20, 2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 130 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 19%
Researcher 13 10%
Lecturer 13 10%
Other 11 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 38 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 18%
Social Sciences 9 7%
Neuroscience 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 42 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 October 2018.
All research outputs
#20,533,782
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#14,074
of 15,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#293,651
of 337,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#233
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 337,288 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.