↓ Skip to main content

The effects of HIV self-testing on the uptake of HIV testing and linkage to antiretroviral treatment among adults in Africa: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 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
The effects of HIV self-testing on the uptake of HIV testing and linkage to antiretroviral treatment among adults in Africa: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0230-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernard Njau, Damian J. Damian, Leila Abdullahi, Andrew Boulle, Catherine Mathews

Abstract

HIV is still a global public health problem. More than 75 % of HIV-infected people are in Africa, and most of them are unaware of their HIV status, which is a barrier to accessing antiretroviral treatment. Our review aims, firstly, to determine whether HIV self-testing is an effective method to increase the uptake of testing, the yield of new HIV-positive diagnoses, and the linkage to antiretroviral treatment. Secondly, we aim to review the factors that facilitate or impede the uptake of HIV self-testing. Participants will be adults living in Africa. For the first aim, the intervention will be HIV self-testing either alone or in addition to HIV testing standard of care. The comparison will be HIV testing standard of care. The primary outcomes will be (i) uptake of HIV testing and (ii) yield of new HIV-positive diagnoses. The secondary outcomes will be (a) linkage to antiretroviral (ARV) treatment and (b) incidence of social harms. For the second aim, we will review barriers and facilitators to the uptake of self-testing. We will search PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, WHOLIS, Africa Wide, and CINAHL for eligible studies from 1998, with no language limits. We will check reference lists of included studies for other eligible reports. Eligible studies will include experimental and observational studies. Two authors will independently screen the search output, select studies, and extract data, resolving discrepancies by consensus and discussion. Two authors will use Cochrane risk of bias tools for experimental studies, the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for observational studies, and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) quality assessment tool for qualitative studies. Innovative and cost-effective community-based HIV testing strategies, such as self-testing, will contribute to universal coverage of HIV testing in Africa. The findings from this systematic review will guide development of self-testing policy in African countries. PROSPERO CRD42015023935.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 29%
Researcher 21 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Other 8 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 4%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 24 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 14%
Social Sciences 13 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 32 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 May 2016.
All research outputs
#3,773,300
of 7,715,105 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#441
of 615 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,191
of 269,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#33
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,715,105 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 615 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 269,268 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.