HIV self-testing intervention experiences and kit usability: results from a qualitative study among men who have sex with men in the SELPHI (Self-Testing Public Health Intervention) randomized controlled trial in England and Wales.

OBJECTIVES: SELPHI (HIV Self-Testing Public Health Intervention) is the largest randomized controlled trial (RCT) of HIV self-testing (HIVST) in a high-income setting to date, and has recruited 10 000 men who have sex with men (cis- and transgender) and transgender women who have sex with men. This qualitative substudy aimed to explore how those utilizing self-tests experience HIVST and the implications for further intervention development and scale-up. This is the first qualitative study in Europe investigating experiences of HIVST among intervention users, and the first globally examining the experience of using blood-based HIVST. METHODS: Thirty-seven cisgender MSM SELPHI participants from across England and Wales were purposively recruited to the substudy, in which semi-structured interviews were used to explore testing history, HIVST experiences and intervention preferences. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed through a framework analysis. RESULTS: Men accessed the intervention because HIVST reduced barriers related to convenience, stigma and privacy concerns. Emotional responses had direct links to acceptability. Supportive intervention components increased engagement with testing and addressed supportive concerns. HIVST facilitated more frequent testing, with the potential to reduce sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening frequency. Substudy participants with an HIV-positive result (n = 2) linked to care promptly and reported very high acceptability. Minor adverse outcomes (n = 2; relationship discord and fainting) did not reduce acceptability. Ease of use difficulties were with the lancet and the test processing stage. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention components shaped acceptability, particularly in relation to overcoming a perceived lack of support. The intervention was broadly acceptable and usable; participants expressed an unexpected degree of enthusiasm for HIVST, including those with HIV-positive results and individuals with minor adverse outcomes.

Healthcare providers' knowledge of, attitudes to and practice of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV infection.

OBJECTIVES: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has proven biological efficacy in reducing the risk of sexual acquisition of HIV. Healthcare providers' (HCPs) knowledge of and attitudes to PrEP will be key to successful implementation. In England, PrEP is only available to men who have sex with men (MSM) through the open-label randomized PROUD pilot study of immediate or deferred use. METHODS: In September 2013, a cross-sectional survey of UK HCPs distributed through sexual health clinics (219) and professional societies' email lists (2599) and at a conference (80) asked about knowledge of, attitudes to and practice of PrEP. RESULTS: Overall, 328 of 2898 (11%) completed the survey, of whom 160 of 328 (49%) were doctors, 51 (16%) sexual health advisers (SHAs), 44 (14%) nurses and 73 (22%) unspecified. Over a quarter (83 of 311; 27%) were involved in PROUD. Most respondents (260 of 326; 80%) rated their knowledge of PrEP as medium or high. Over half of respondents (166 of 307; 54%) thought PrEP should be available outside of a clinical trial. The main barriers to supporting PrEP availability outside a clinical trial were concerns about current evidence (odds ratio [OR] 0.13), lack of UK-specific guidance (OR 0.35), concerns about adherence (OR 0.38) and risk of sexual or physical coercion for patients to have condomless or higher risk sex (OR 0.42 in multivariate regression). Just over half (147 of 277; 53%) had been asked about PrEP by patients in the past year, including almost half of those working in a clinic not involved in the PROUD study (86 of 202; 43%). CONCLUSIONS: There is support for PrEP availability outside a clinical trial, but HCPs have residual concerns about its effectiveness and negative consequences, and the absence of UK-specific implementation guidance.