BACKGROUND: Home specimen collection and telephone counseling (HSCTC) may be a convenient new method for detection of HIV infection among cohorts at high-risk for HIV. GOAL: To evaluate attitudes about HSCTC among participants, HIV counselors, and community advisory board members associated with a national multisite study of persons at high risk for HIV. STUDY DESIGN: Twelve focus groups and surveys were conducted at six sites among 126 counselors, community advisory board members, and cohort participants. RESULTS: Staff and community advisory board members raised concerns about the acceptability, feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of HSCTC. In contrast, participants (92%) reported a willingness to collect blood and oral samples on a frequent basis, and preferred telephone (73%) to office-based counseling. CONCLUSION: Home specimen collection and telephone counseling appear to be preferred by study participants at high risk of HIV infection. Staff and community advisory board members had stronger reservations than prospective users.
BACKGROUND: Home specimen collection and telephone counseling (HSCTC) may be a convenient new method for detection of HIV infection among cohorts at high-risk for HIV. GOAL: To evaluate attitudes about HSCTC among participants, HIV counselors, and community advisory board members associated with a national multisite study of persons at high risk for HIV. STUDY DESIGN: Twelve focus groups and surveys were conducted at six sites among 126 counselors, community advisory board members, and cohort participants. RESULTS: Staff and community advisory board members raised concerns about the acceptability, feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of HSCTC. In contrast, participants (92%) reported a willingness to collect blood and oral samples on a frequent basis, and preferred telephone (73%) to office-based counseling. CONCLUSION: Home specimen collection and telephone counseling appear to be preferred by study participants at high risk of HIV infection. Staff and community advisory board members had stronger reservations than prospective users.
Authors: C Dodds; E Mugweni; G Phillips; C Park; I Young; I Fakoya; S Wayal; L McDaid; M Sachikonye; J Chwaula; P Flowers; F Burns Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Thierry Prazuck; Stephen Karon; Camelia Gubavu; Jerome Andre; Jean Marie Legall; Elisabeth Bouvet; Georges Kreplak; Jean Paul Teglas; Gilles Pialoux Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Tyler B Wray; Philip A Chan; Jeffrey D Klausner; Leandro A Mena; James B Brock; Erik M Simpanen; Lori M Ward; Stafylis Chrysovalantis Journal: Trials Date: 2020-07-16 Impact factor: 2.279