Usability and acceptability of oral-based HCV self-testing among key populations: a mixed-methods evaluation in Tbilisi, Georgia.
Acceptability
Georgia
HCV
MSM
Oral fluid
PWID
Screening
Self-testing
Journal
BMC infectious diseases
ISSN: 1471-2334
Titre abrégé: BMC Infect Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968551
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 May 2022
31 May 2022
Historique:
received:
31
07
2021
accepted:
18
05
2022
entrez:
1
6
2022
pubmed:
2
6
2022
medline:
3
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Hepatitis C virus self-testing (HCVST) is an additional approach that may expand access to HCV testing. We conducted a mixed-methods cross-sectional observational study to assess the usability and acceptability of HCVST among people who inject drugs (PWID), men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender (TG) people in Tbilisi, Georgia. The study was conducted from December 2019 to June 2020 among PWID at one harm reduction site and among MSM/TG at one community-based organization. We used a convergent parallel mixed-methods design. Usability was assessed by observing errors made and difficulties faced by participants. Acceptability was assessed using an interviewer-administered semi-structured questionnaire. A subset of participants participated in cognitive and in-depth interviews. A total of 90 PWID, 84 MSM and 6 TG were observed performing HCVST. PWID were older (median age 35 vs 24) and had a lower level of education compared to MSM/TG (27% vs 59%). The proportion of participants who completed all steps successfully without assistance was 60% among PWID and 80% among MSM/TG. The most common error was in sample collection and this was observed more often among PWID than MSM/TG (21% vs 6%; p = 0.002). More PWID requested assistance during HCVST compared to MSM/TG (22% vs 8%; p = 0.011). Acceptability was high in both groups (98% vs 96%; p = 0.407). Inter-reader agreement was 97% among PWID and 99% among MSM/TG. Qualitative data from cognitive (n = 20) and in-depth interviews (n = 20) was consistent with the quantitative data confirming a high usability and acceptability. HCVST was highly acceptable among key populations in Georgia of relatively high educational level, and most participants performed HCVST correctly. A significant difference in usability was observed among PWID compared to MSM/TG, indicating that PWID may benefit from improved messaging and education as well as options to receive direct assistance when self-testing for HCV.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Hepatitis C virus self-testing (HCVST) is an additional approach that may expand access to HCV testing. We conducted a mixed-methods cross-sectional observational study to assess the usability and acceptability of HCVST among people who inject drugs (PWID), men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender (TG) people in Tbilisi, Georgia.
METHODS
METHODS
The study was conducted from December 2019 to June 2020 among PWID at one harm reduction site and among MSM/TG at one community-based organization. We used a convergent parallel mixed-methods design. Usability was assessed by observing errors made and difficulties faced by participants. Acceptability was assessed using an interviewer-administered semi-structured questionnaire. A subset of participants participated in cognitive and in-depth interviews.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 90 PWID, 84 MSM and 6 TG were observed performing HCVST. PWID were older (median age 35 vs 24) and had a lower level of education compared to MSM/TG (27% vs 59%). The proportion of participants who completed all steps successfully without assistance was 60% among PWID and 80% among MSM/TG. The most common error was in sample collection and this was observed more often among PWID than MSM/TG (21% vs 6%; p = 0.002). More PWID requested assistance during HCVST compared to MSM/TG (22% vs 8%; p = 0.011). Acceptability was high in both groups (98% vs 96%; p = 0.407). Inter-reader agreement was 97% among PWID and 99% among MSM/TG. Qualitative data from cognitive (n = 20) and in-depth interviews (n = 20) was consistent with the quantitative data confirming a high usability and acceptability.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
HCVST was highly acceptable among key populations in Georgia of relatively high educational level, and most participants performed HCVST correctly. A significant difference in usability was observed among PWID compared to MSM/TG, indicating that PWID may benefit from improved messaging and education as well as options to receive direct assistance when self-testing for HCV.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35641908
doi: 10.1186/s12879-022-07484-2
pii: 10.1186/s12879-022-07484-2
pmc: PMC9154030
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
510Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Aug 16;73(4):e1018-e1028
pubmed: 34398952
Kolner Z Soz Sozpsychol. 2017;69(Suppl 2):107-131
pubmed: 28989188
J Hepatol. 2019 Jun;70(6):1043-1045
pubmed: 30948269
J Int AIDS Soc. 2017 May 15;20(1):21594
pubmed: 28530049
PLoS One. 2017 Nov 30;12(11):e0188890
pubmed: 29190791
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Feb;4(2):135-184
pubmed: 30647010
J Infect Public Health. 2018 Jan - Feb;11(1):126-129
pubmed: 28684223
J Int AIDS Soc. 2019 Mar;22 Suppl 1:e25253
pubmed: 30907496
BMC Public Health. 2013 Aug 08;13:735
pubmed: 23924387
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019 Oct;95(2):149-151
pubmed: 31204109
J Viral Hepat. 2019 Jul;26(7):919-922
pubmed: 30801881
Lancet HIV. 2018 Jun;5(6):e277-e290
pubmed: 29703707
AIDS. 2017 Jul 1;31 Suppl 3:S203-S212
pubmed: 28665878
BMC Public Health. 2021 Jun 22;21(1):1188
pubmed: 34158006
PLoS One. 2019 Apr 29;14(4):e0216123
pubmed: 31034530
PLoS One. 2020 Jan 14;15(1):e0227198
pubmed: 31935228
Lancet Infect Dis. 2016 Jul;16(7):797-808
pubmed: 26922272
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015 Jul 24;64(28):753-7
pubmed: 26203628
BMC Public Health. 2019 May 10;19(Suppl 3):480
pubmed: 32326913
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Jan;6(1):39-56
pubmed: 33217341
Indian J Med Res. 2020 Jul & Aug;152(1 & 2):164-167
pubmed: 32896835
BMC Infect Dis. 2018 Jun 19;18(1):281
pubmed: 29914381
Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2018 Feb;31(1):14-24
pubmed: 29232277
PLoS Med. 2013;10(4):e1001414
pubmed: 23565066
BMC Infect Dis. 2021 Jun 26;21(1):609
pubmed: 34171990
BMC Infect Dis. 2017 Nov 1;17(Suppl 1):699
pubmed: 29143676
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jan 26;17(1):88
pubmed: 28126032
AIDS Behav. 2015 Nov;19(11):1949-65
pubmed: 26054390
J Hepatol. 2016 Oct;65(1 Suppl):S46-S66
pubmed: 27641988
BMC Infect Dis. 2022 Sep 15;22(1):738
pubmed: 36109704
Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 Feb 23;11(2):
pubmed: 33672241
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016 Oct 21;65(41):1132-1135
pubmed: 27764081
Value Health. 2020 Jul;23(7):870-879
pubmed: 32762988
Lancet Glob Health. 2021 Apr;9(4):e431-e445
pubmed: 33639097
J Hepatol. 2021 Feb;74(2):303-311
pubmed: 32931878
J Int AIDS Soc. 2019 Mar;22 Suppl 1:e25243
pubmed: 30907498
BMC Infect Dis. 2017 Nov 1;17(Suppl 1):695
pubmed: 29143615