Organisation of testing services, structural barriers and facilitators of routine HIV self-testing during sexually transmitted infection consultations: a qualitative study of patients and providers in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Consultations for sexually transmitted infection (STI) provide an opportunity to offer HIV testing to both patients and their partners. This study describes the organisation of HIV self-testing (HIVST) distribution during STI consultations in Abidjan (Côte d'Ivoire) and analyse the perceived barriers and facilitators associated with the use and redistribution of HIVST kits by STI patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted between March and August 2021 to investigate three services providing HIVST: an antenatal care clinic (ANC), a general health centre that also provided STI consultations, and a dedicated STI clinic. Data were collected through observations of medical consultations with STI patients (N = 98) and interviews with both health professionals involved in HIVST distribution (N = 18) and STI patients who received HIVST kits for their partners (N = 20). RESULTS: In the ANC clinic, HIV testing was routinely offered during the first prenatal visit. HIVST was commonly offered to women who had been diagnosed with an STI for their partner's use (27/29 observations). In the general health centre, two parallel pathways coexisted: before the consultation, a risk assessment tool was used to offer HIV testing to eligible patients and, after the consultation, patients who had been diagnosed with an STI were referred to a care assistant for HIVST. Due to this HIV testing patient flow, few offers of HIV testing and HIVST were made in this setting (3/16). At the dedicated STI clinic, an HIVST video was played in the waiting room. According to the health professionals interviewed, this video helped reduce the time required to offer HIVST after the consultation. Task-shifting was implemented there: patients were referred to a nurse for HIV testing, and HIVST was commonly offered to STI patients for their partners' use (28/53). When an HIVST was offered, it was generally accepted (54/58). Both health professionals and patients perceived HIVST positively despite experiencing a few difficulties with respect to offering HIVST to partners and structural barriers associated with the organisation of services. CONCLUSION: The organisation of patient flow and task-shifting influenced HIV testing and offers of HIVST kits. Proposing HIVST is more systematic when HIV testing is routinely offered to all patients. Successful integration requires improving the organisation of services, including task-shifting.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".