The study utilized location-targeted Facebook advertisements to promote the study and to invite potential target participants. In addition, the study partnered with an organization that has already been offering HIV testing, prevention, and treatment services to key populations in the country. Responses were gathered through the virtual assistant and were encrypted and automatically transported to a database in real-time. At the end of data collection, the database was anonymized by assigning a unique identifier code for each client.
The socio-demographic characteristics of the participants were collected through the virtual assistant. The feasibility of delivering HIVST kits to the target key populations in a community setting was assessed based on the following parameters: the number of HIVST kits distributed (HIVST uptake), the HIV reactivity rate, and the linkage to further testing. In addition, information on the participant’s HIV testing experience (never/ever tested for HIV) and preference on the type of sources of HIVST information was also surveyed.
Furthermore, the acceptability of the HIVST kit was the main outcome of the study. It was measured using a 10-item System Usability Scale (SUS), a standard tool that allows users to assess the usability of a given product or service [17 –19 ]. Briefly, it is comprised of ten validated statements, which cover five positive aspects and five negative aspects of a particular tool, system, or kit. The final score is out of 100, wherein each respondent answered every question on a Likert scale from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Moreover, a SUS score of less than 50 was considered “Not Acceptable” and would imply that the HIVST kit will have usability issues. SUS scores between 50 to 70 were classified as “Marginal,” whereas a SUS score of greater than 70 was categorized as “Acceptable,” with varying degrees of usability [18 ]. The SUS tool was only offered to non-reactive clients through the virtual assistant. Reactive clients were excluded due to possible high emotional stress from the result of using the HIVST kit, which may affect their response to the survey.
Moreover, counselors assigned to each client discussed evidence-based preventive strategies such as using PrEP to non-reactive clients to decrease their risk of acquiring HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Furthermore, counselors prioritized linkage to confirmatory testing for the reactive clients and emphasized the importance of early initiation of treatment. The reactive clients were referred to “acXess by LoveYourself,” the ambulatory service created by the TLY team to overcome the mobility restrictions caused by the announcement of enhanced community quarantine lockdowns to control the spread of COVID-19. The research team excluded the reactive group from answering the survey to prioritize confirmatory testing and treatment referral. In addition, the research team contacted the participants who received invalid results and were given instructions to visit the nearest HIV facility for immediate retesting. Lastly, the research team sent notifications via the virtual assistant to those who did not disclose their HIVST result to remind them to report their test result.
The socio-demographic characteristics of the participants were collected through the virtual assistant. The feasibility of delivering HIVST kits to the target key populations in a community setting was assessed based on the following parameters: the number of HIVST kits distributed (HIVST uptake), the HIV reactivity rate, and the linkage to further testing. In addition, information on the participant’s HIV testing experience (never/ever tested for HIV) and preference on the type of sources of HIVST information was also surveyed.
Furthermore, the acceptability of the HIVST kit was the main outcome of the study. It was measured using a 10-item System Usability Scale (SUS), a standard tool that allows users to assess the usability of a given product or service [17 –19 ]. Briefly, it is comprised of ten validated statements, which cover five positive aspects and five negative aspects of a particular tool, system, or kit. The final score is out of 100, wherein each respondent answered every question on a Likert scale from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Moreover, a SUS score of less than 50 was considered “Not Acceptable” and would imply that the HIVST kit will have usability issues. SUS scores between 50 to 70 were classified as “Marginal,” whereas a SUS score of greater than 70 was categorized as “Acceptable,” with varying degrees of usability [18 ]. The SUS tool was only offered to non-reactive clients through the virtual assistant. Reactive clients were excluded due to possible high emotional stress from the result of using the HIVST kit, which may affect their response to the survey.
Moreover, counselors assigned to each client discussed evidence-based preventive strategies such as using PrEP to non-reactive clients to decrease their risk of acquiring HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Furthermore, counselors prioritized linkage to confirmatory testing for the reactive clients and emphasized the importance of early initiation of treatment. The reactive clients were referred to “acXess by LoveYourself,” the ambulatory service created by the TLY team to overcome the mobility restrictions caused by the announcement of enhanced community quarantine lockdowns to control the spread of COVID-19. The research team excluded the reactive group from answering the survey to prioritize confirmatory testing and treatment referral. In addition, the research team contacted the participants who received invalid results and were given instructions to visit the nearest HIV facility for immediate retesting. Lastly, the research team sent notifications via the virtual assistant to those who did not disclose their HIVST result to remind them to report their test result.
Free full text: Click here
