BACKGROUND: In Southern Africa, men access HIV counseling and testing (HCT) services less than women. Innovative strategies are needed to increase uptake of testing among men. This study assessed the effectiveness of incentivized mobile HCT in reaching unemployed men in Cape Town, South Africa. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of HCT data collected between August 2008 and August 2010 from adult men accessing clinic-based stationary and non-incentivized and incentivized mobile services. Data from these 3 services were analyzed using descriptive statistics and log-binomial regression models. RESULTS: A total of 9416 first-time testers were included in the analysis as follows: 708 were clinic based, 4985 were non-incentivized, and 3723 incentivized mobile service testers. A higher HIV prevalence was observed among men accessing incentivized mobile testing [16.6% (617/3723)] compared with those attending non-incentivized mobile [5.5% (277/4985)] and clinic-based services [10.2% (72/708)]. Among men testing at the mobile service, greater proportions of men receiving incentives were self-reported first-time testers (60.1% vs. 42.0%) and had advanced disease (14.9% vs. 7.5%) compared with men testing at non-incentivized mobile services. Furthermore, compared with the non-incentivized mobile service, the incentivized service was associated with a 3-fold greater yield of newly diagnosed HIV infections. This strong association persisted in analyses adjusted for age and first-time versus repeat testing [risk ratio: 2.33 (95% confidence interval: 2.03 to 2.57); P < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that incentivized mobile testing services may reach more previously untested men and significantly increase detection of HIV infection in men.
BACKGROUND: In Southern Africa, men access HIV counseling and testing (HCT) services less than women. Innovative strategies are needed to increase uptake of testing among men. This study assessed the effectiveness of incentivized mobile HCT in reaching unemployed men in Cape Town, South Africa. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of HCT data collected between August 2008 and August 2010 from adult men accessing clinic-based stationary and non-incentivized and incentivized mobile services. Data from these 3 services were analyzed using descriptive statistics and log-binomial regression models. RESULTS: A total of 9416 first-time testers were included in the analysis as follows: 708 were clinic based, 4985 were non-incentivized, and 3723 incentivized mobile service testers. A higher HIV prevalence was observed among men accessing incentivized mobile testing [16.6% (617/3723)] compared with those attending non-incentivized mobile [5.5% (277/4985)] and clinic-based services [10.2% (72/708)]. Among men testing at the mobile service, greater proportions of men receiving incentives were self-reported first-time testers (60.1% vs. 42.0%) and had advanced disease (14.9% vs. 7.5%) compared with men testing at non-incentivized mobile services. Furthermore, compared with the non-incentivized mobile service, the incentivized service was associated with a 3-fold greater yield of newly diagnosed HIV infections. This strong association persisted in analyses adjusted for age and first-time versus repeat testing [risk ratio: 2.33 (95% confidence interval: 2.03 to 2.57); P < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that incentivized mobile testing services may reach more previously untested men and significantly increase detection of HIV infection in men.
Authors: Kartik K Venkatesh; Precious Madiba; Guy De Bruyn; Mark N Lurie; Thomas J Coates; Glenda E Gray Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Keren Middelkoop; Linda-Gail Bekker; Landon Myer; Andrew Whitelaw; Alison Grant; Gilla Kaplan; James McIntyre; Robin Wood Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2010-06-17 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Andrew Boulle; Gilles Van Cutsem; Katherine Hilderbrand; Carol Cragg; Musaed Abrahams; Shaheed Mathee; Nathan Ford; Louise Knight; Meg Osler; Jonny Myers; Eric Goemaere; David Coetzee; Gary Maartens Journal: AIDS Date: 2010-02-20 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Meghan M Shorter; Jan Ostermann; John A Crump; Alison C Tribble; Dafrosa K Itemba; Anna Mgonja; Antipas Mtalo; John A Bartlett; John F Shao; Werner Schimana; Nathan M Thielman Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Elizabeth L Corbett; Ethel Dauya; Ronnie Matambo; Yin Bun Cheung; Beauty Makamure; Mary T Bassett; Steven Chandiwana; Shungu Munyati; Peter R Mason; Anthony E Butterworth; Peter Godfrey-Faussett; Richard J Hayes Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: K Bissell; A D Harries; A J Reid; M Edginton; S G Hinderaker; S Satyanarayana; D A Enarson; R Zachariah Journal: Public Health Action Date: 2012-09-21
Authors: Euphemia L Sibanda; Mary Tumushime; Juliet Mufuka; Sue Napierala Mavedzenge; Stephano Gudukeya; Sergio Bautista-Arredondo; Karin Hatzold; Harsha Thirumurthy; Sandra I McCoy; Nancy Padian; Andrew Copas; Frances M Cowan Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 26.763
Authors: I V Bassett; S Regan; P Luthuli; H Mbonambi; B Bearnot; A Pendleton; M Robine; D Mukuvisi; H Thulare; R P Walensky; K A Freedberg; E Losina; B Mhlongo Journal: HIV Med Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 3.180
Authors: Marta-Louise Ackers; Allen Hightower; David Obor; Peter Ofware; Lilian Ngere; Adazu Kubaje; Kayla F Laserson Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2013-12-09 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Larry W Chang; David Serwadda; Thomas C Quinn; Maria J Wawer; Ronald H Gray; Steven J Reynolds Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 25.071