| Literature DB >> 32225045 |
Tafadzwa Dzinamarira1, Tivani Phosa Mashamba-Thompson1,2,3.
Abstract
Background and objectives: Available evidence shows a low uptake of HIV services among men in Rwanda. HIV self-testing (HIVST), a new intervention, may have the potential to improve the uptake of HIV testing services among men. The current study aims to adapt a health education program (HEP) for improving the uptake of HIVST among men in Rwanda. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: HIV self-testing; health education program; men
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32225045 PMCID: PMC7230617 DOI: 10.3390/medicina56040149
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) ISSN: 1010-660X Impact factor: 2.430
Consolidated framework for implementation research.
| Intervention Characteristics |
|---|
| (a) Intervention source: Perception of key stakeholders about whether HIVST externally or internally developed. |
| (b) Evidence Strength and Quality: Stakeholders’ perceptions of the quality and validity of evidence supporting the belief that HIVST will have desired outcomes. |
| (c) Relative advantage: Stakeholders’ perception of the advantage of implementing HIVST versus an alternative solution |
| (d) Adaptability: The degree to which HIVST can be adapted, tailored, refined, or reinvented to meet local needs |
| (e) Trialability: The ability to test HIVST on a small scale in the organization, and to be able to reverse course (undo implementation) if warranted. |
| (f) Complexity Perceived difficulty of implementation, reflected by duration, scope, radicalness, disruptiveness, centrality, and intricacy and number of steps required to implement |
| (g) Design Quality and Packaging Perceived excellence in how HIVST bundled, presented, and assembled |
| (h) Cost: Costs of HIVST and costs associated with implementing HIVST including investment, supply, and opportunity costs. |
Calculation of sample size and determination of sampling strategy per study site.
| Study Site | Number of Monthly Male Clinic Attendees Per Month | Calculated Sample Size for Study Site (Probability Proportionate to Size) | Systematic Random Sampling Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 400 | (400/900 × 384) 170 | (900/400) every 2nd person |
| 2 | 300 | (300/900 × 384) 128 | (900/300) every 3rd person |
| 3 | 200 | (200/900 × 384) 86 | (900/200) every 5th person |
| Totals | 900 | 384 |
Outcomes, exploratory factors, and the methods of analysis for each study objective.
| Outcome Measures Variable | Criteria for Success/Hypothesis | Exploratory Factors | Methods of Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Improved availability, acceptability, and uptake of health education programs (HEPs) by men in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). | N/A | Availability, acceptability, and uptake of HEPs. | Thematic content analysis |
|
| |||
| Perception | N/A | Key stakeholders and health care provider’s perceptions on the implementation of HIV-self testing | Qualitative |
|
| |||
| Awareness | N/A | Demographic characteristics, knowledge, attitudes, HIV risk perception, and health seeking behavior characteristics | Descriptive statistics or estimates based on 95% confidence intervals (CI) Logistic regression |
| Acceptability | |||
|
| |||
| Adapted HEP | N/A | N/A | Nominal group technique |
|
| |||
|
Recruitment Uptake (self-reported use of the HIVST kit) |
60 men followed after 3 months At least 80% will take up HIVST |
Percentage response rate Proportion of men who will take up HIVST | Descriptive statistics or estimates based on 95% confidence intervals (CI) |
| % of men who get HIV diagnosis | Higher proportion of HIV diagnosis, linkage to care, and repeat testing for negative participants in the intervention group (HEP), compared with the non-intervention group. | Age, education level, religious belief, sexual behavior, sexual preference, marital status; age of first sexual encounter; the number of sexual partners, the history of STI, circumcision, condom use, alcohol and drug use, perceived risk of contracting HIV, level of income, distance to the point of sale of HIVST | Logistic regression |
| % of men who tested HIV positive and linked to care | |||
| % of repeat test from men who tested HIV negative | |||