↓ Skip to main content

Cost and quality of life analysis of HIV self-testing and facility-based HIV testing and counselling in Blantyre, Malawi

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
207 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
Cost and quality of life analysis of HIV self-testing and facility-based HIV testing and counselling in Blantyre, Malawi
Published in
BMC Medicine, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0577-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hendramoorthy Maheswaran, Stavros Petrou, Peter MacPherson, Augustine T. Choko, Felistas Kumwenda, David G. Lalloo, Aileen Clarke, Elizabeth L. Corbett

Abstract

HIV self-testing (HIVST) has been found to be highly effective, but no cost analysis has been undertaken to guide the design of affordable and scalable implementation strategies. Consecutive HIV self-testers and facility-based testers were recruited from participants in a community cluster-randomised trial ( ISRCTN02004005 ) investigating the impact of offering HIVST in addition to facility-based HIV testing and counselling (HTC). Primary costing studies were undertaken of the HIVST service and of health facilities providing HTC to the trial population. Costs were adjusted to 2014 US$ and INT$. Recruited participants were asked about direct non-medical and indirect costs associated with accessing either modality of HIV testing, and additionally their health-related quality of life was measured using the EuroQol EQ-5D. A total of 1,241 participants underwent either HIVST (n = 775) or facility-based HTC (n = 446). The mean societal cost per participant tested through HIVST (US$9.23; 95 % CI: US$9.14-US$9.32) was lower than through facility-based HTC (US$11.84; 95 % CI: US$10.81-12.86). Although the mean health provider cost per participant tested through HIVST (US$8.78) was comparable to facility-based HTC (range: US$7.53-US$10.57), the associated mean direct non-medical and indirect cost was lower (US$2.93; 95 % CI: US$1.90-US$3.96). The mean health provider cost per HIV positive participant identified through HIVST was higher (US$97.50) than for health facilities (range: US$25.18-US$76.14), as was the mean cost per HIV positive individual assessed for anti-retroviral treatment (ART) eligibility and the mean cost per HIV positive individual initiated onto ART. In comparison to the facility-testing group, the adjusted mean EQ-5D utility score was 0.046 (95 % CI: 0.022-0.070) higher in the HIVST group. HIVST reduces the economic burden on clients, but is a costlier strategy for the health provider aiming to identify HIV positive individuals for treatment. The provider cost of HIVST could be substantially lower under less restrictive distribution models, or if costs of oral fluid HIV test kits become comparable to finger-prick kits used in health facilities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Botswana 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 205 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 23%
Researcher 37 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 13%
Other 19 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 4%
Other 29 14%
Unknown 38 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 14%
Social Sciences 21 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 4%
Other 35 17%
Unknown 52 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 07 March 2024.
All research outputs
#2,731,656
of 25,446,666 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,770
of 4,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,774
of 312,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#28
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,446,666 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,019 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 312,310 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.