Key Stakeholders’ Perspectives on Implementation and Scale up of HIV Self-Testing in Rwanda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The World Health Organisation recommends HIV self-testing as an alternative testing method to help reach underserved populations, such as men in sub-Saharan Africa. Successful implementation and scale-up of HIV self-testing (HIVST) in Rwanda relies heavily on relevant stakeholders' involvement. We sought to explore HIVST key stakeholders' perceptions of the implementation and scale-up of HIVST in Rwanda. METHOD: We conducted in-depth interviews with personnel involved in HIV response projects in Rwanda between September and November 2019. We purposively sampled and interviewed 13 national-level key stakeholders from the Ministry of Health, Rwanda Biomedical Center, non-governmental organizations and HIV clinics at tertiary health facilities in Kigali. We used a thematic approach to analysis with a coding framework guided by Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (intervention characteristics, inner setting, outer setting, characteristics of individuals involved in the implementation and the implementation process). RESULTS: Key stakeholders perceived HIVST as a potentially effective initiative, which can be used in order to ensure that there is an improvement in uptake of testing services, especially for underserved populations in Rwanda. The following challenges for implementation and scale-up of HIVST were revealed: lack of awareness of the kits, high cost of the self-test kits, and concerns on results interpretation. Key stakeholders identified the following as prerequisites to the successful implementation and scale-up of HIVST in Rwanda; creation of awareness, training those involved in the implementation process, regulation of the selling of the self-test kits, reduction of the costs of acquiring the self-test kits through the provision of subsidies, and ensuring consistent availability of the self-test kits. CONCLUSIONS: Key stakeholders expressed confidence in HIVST's ability to improve the uptake of HIV testing services. However, they reported challenges, which need to be addressed to ensure successful implementation and scale-up of the HIVST. There is a need for further research incorporating lower level stakeholders to fully understand HIVST implementation and scale-up challenges and strategies to inform policy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".