Do community measures impact the effectiveness of a community led HIV testing intervention. Secondary analysis of an HIV self-testing intervention in rural communities in Zimbabwe.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing body of evidence for the role that communities can have in producing beneficial health outcomes. There is also an increasing recognition of the effectiveness and success of community-led interventions to promote public health efforts. This study investigated whether and how community-level measures facilitate a community-led intervention to achieve improved HIV outcomes. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of survey data from a cluster randomised trial in 40 rural communities in Zimbabwe. The survey was conducted four months after the intervention was initiated. Communities were randomised 1:1 to either paid distribution arm, where HIV self-test (HIVST) kits were distributed by a paid distributor, or community-led whereby members of the community were responsible for organising and conducting the distribution of HIVST kits. We used mixed effects logistic regression to assess the effect of social cohesion, problem solving, and HIV awareness on HIV testing and prevention. RESULTS: We found no association between community measures and the three HIV outcomes (self-testing, new HIV diagnosis and linkage to VMMC or confirmatory testing). However, the interaction analyses highlighted that in high social cohesion communities, the odds of new HIV diagnosis was greater in the community-led arm than paid distribution arm (OR 2.06 95% CI 1.03-4.19). CONCLUSION: We found some evidence that community-led interventions reached more undiagnosed people living with HIV in places with high social cohesion. Additional research should seek to understand whether the effect of social cohesion is persistent across other community interventions and outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PACTR201607001701788.

ART initiations following community-based distribution of HIV self-tests: meta-analysis and meta-regression of STAR Initiative data.

INTRODUCTION: Measuring linkage after community-based testing, particularly HIV self-testing (HIVST), is challenging. Here, we use data from studies of community-based HIVST distribution, conducted within the STAR Initiative, to assess initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) and factors driving differences in linkage rates. METHODS: Five STAR studies evaluated HIVST implementation in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe. New ART initiations during the months of intervention at clinics in HIVST and comparison areas were presented graphically, and study effects combined using meta-analysis. Meta-regression was used to estimate associations between the impact of community-based HIVST distribution and indicators of implementation context, intensity and reach. Effect size estimates used (1) prespecified trial definitions of ART timing and comparator facilities and (2) exploratory definitions accounting for unexpected diffusion of HIVST into comparison areas and periods with less distribution of HIVST than was expected. RESULTS: Compared with arms with standard testing only, ART initiations were higher in clinics in HIVST distribution areas in 4/5 studies. The prespecified meta-analysis found positive but variable effects of HIVST on facility ART initiations (RR: 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.40; p=0.21). The exploratory meta-analysis found a stronger impact of HIVST distribution on ART initiations (RR: 1.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.55, p=0.02).ART initiations were higher in studies with greater self-reported population-level intensity of HIVST use (RR: 1.12; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.21; p=0.02.), but did not differ by national-level indicators of ART use among people living with HIV, number of HIVST kits distributed per 1000 population, or self-reported knowledge of how to link to care after a reactive HIVST. CONCLUSION: Community-based HIVST distribution has variable effect on ART initiations compared with standard testing service alone. Optimising both support for and approach to measurement of effective and timely linkage or relinkage to HIV care and prevention following HIVST is needed to maximise impact and guide implementation strategies.

Community-based HIV self-testing: a cluster-randomised trial of supply-side financial incentives and time-trend analysis of linkage to antiretroviral therapy in Zimbabwe.

BACKGROUND: HIV self-testing (HIVST) requires linkage to post-test services to maximise its benefits. We evaluated effect of supply-side incentivisation on linkage following community-based HIVST and evaluated time-trends in facility-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiations. METHODS: From August 2016 to August 2017 community-based distributors (CBDs) in 38 rural Zimbabwean communities distributed HIVST door-to-door in 19-25 day campaigns. Communities were allocated (1:1) using constrained randomisation to either one-off US$50 remuneration per CBD (non-incentive arm), or US$50 plus US$0.20 incentive per client visiting mobile-outreach services (conditional-incentive arm). The primary outcome, assessed by population survey 6 weeks later, was self-reported uptake of any clinic service, analysed with random-effects logistic regression. Separately, non-randomised difference-in-differences in monthly ART initiations were analysed for three time periods (6 months baseline; HIVST campaign; 3 months after) at public clinics with (40 clinics) and without (124 clinics) HIVST distribution in catchment area. FINDINGS: A total of 445 conditional-incentive CBDs distributed 39 205 HIVST kits (mean/CBD: 88; 95% CI: 85 to 92) and 447 non-incentive CBDs distributed 41 173 kits (mean/CBD: 93; 95% CI: 89 to 96). Survey participation was 7146/8566 (83.4%), with 3593 (50.3%) reporting self-testing including 1305 (18.3%) previously untested individuals. Use of clinic services post-HIVST was similar in conditional-incentive (1062/3698, 28.7%) and non-incentive (1075/3448, 31.2%) arms (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 0.94, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.03). Confirmatory testing by newly diagnosed/untreated HIVST+clients was, however, higher (conditional-incentive: 25/33, 75.8% vs non-incentive: 20/40, 50.0%: aRR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.05 to 2.39). In total, 12 808 ART initiations occurred, with no baseline or postcampaign differences between initiation rates in HIVST versus non-HIVST clinics, but initiation rates increased from 7.31 to 9.59 initiations per month in HIVST clinics during distribution, aRR: 1.27, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.39. CONCLUSIONS: Community-based HIVST campaigns achieved high testing uptake, temporally associated with increased demand for ART. Small supply-side incentives did not affect general clinic usage but may have increased confirmatory testing for newly diagnosed HIVST positive participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PACTR201607001701788.

Comparison of community-led distribution of HIV self-tests kits with distribution by paid distributors: a cluster randomised trial in rural Zimbabwean communities.

BACKGROUND: We compared community-led versus an established community-based HIV self-testing (HIVST) model in rural Zimbabwe using a cluster-randomised trial. METHODS: Forty village groups were randomised 1:1 using restricted randomisation to community-led HIVST, where communities planned and implemented HIVST distribution for 4 weeks, or paid distribution (PD), where distributors were paid US$50 to distribute kits door-to-door over 4 weeks. Individual level primary outcomes compared household survey responses by arm 4 months post-intervention for: (1) newly diagnosed HIV during/within 4 months following HIVST distribution, (2) linkage to confirmatory testing, pre-exposure prophylaxis or voluntary medical male circumcision during/within 4 months following HIVST distribution. Participants were not masked to allocation; analysis used masked data. Trial analysis used random-effects logistic regression.Distribution costs compared: (1) community-led HIVST, (2) PD HIVST and (3) PD costs when first implemented in 2016/2017. RESULTS: From October 2018 to August 2019, 27 812 and 36 699 HIVST kits were distributed in community-led and PD communities, respectively. We surveyed 11 150 participants and 5683 were in community-led arm. New HIV diagnosis was reported by 211 (3.7%) community-led versus 197 (3.6%) PD arm participants, adjusted OR (aOR) 1.1 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.56); 318 (25.9%) community-led arm participants linked to post-test services versus 361 (23.9%) in PD arm, aOR 1.1 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.49.Cost per HIVST kit distributed was US$6.29 and US$10.25 for PD and community-led HIVST, both lower than 2016/2017 costs for newly implemented PD (US$14.52). No social harms were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Community-led HIVST can perform as well as paid distribution, with lower costs in the first year. These costs may reduce with programme maturity/learning. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PACTR201811849455568.

Costs of integrating HIV self-testing in public health facilities in Malawi, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

INTRODUCTION: As countries approach the UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets, there is a need for innovative and cost-saving HIV testing approaches that can increase testing coverage in hard-to-reach populations. The HIV Self-Testing Africa-Initiative distributed HIV self-test (HIVST) kits using unincentivised HIV testing counsellors across 31 public facilities in Malawi, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe. HIVST was distributed either through secondary (partner's use) distribution alone or primary (own use) and secondary distribution approaches. METHODS: We evaluated the costs of adding HIVST to existing HIV testing from the providers' perspective in the 31 public health facilities across the four countries between 2018 and 2019. We combined expenditure analysis and bottom-up costing approaches. We also carried out time-and-motion studies on the counsellors to estimate the human resource costs of introducing and demonstrating how to use HIVST for primary and secondary use. RESULTS: A total of 41 720 kits were distributed during the analysis period, ranging from 1254 in Zimbabwe to 27 678 in Zambia. The cost per kit distributed through the primary distribution approach was $4.27 in Zambia and $9.24 in Zimbabwe. The cost per kit distributed through the secondary distribution approach ranged from $6.46 in Zambia to $13.42 in South Africa, with a wider variation in the average cost at facility-level. From the time-and-motion observations, the counsellors spent between 20% and 44% of the observed workday on HIVST. Overall, personnel and test kit costs were the main cost drivers. CONCLUSION: The average costs of distributing HIVST kits were comparable across the four countries in our analysis despite wide cost variability within countries. We recommend context-specific exploration of potential efficiency gains from these facility-level cost variations and demand creation activities to ensure continued affordability at scale.