Cargando…
Arguments for and against HIV self-testing
Approximately 60% of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals are unaware of their infection, and stigma and discrimination continue to threaten acceptance of HIV testing services worldwide. Self-testing for HIV has garnered controversy for years and the debate reignited with the appr...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove Medical Press
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4126574/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25114592 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/HIV.S49083 |
_version_ | 1782329932977799168 |
---|---|
author | Wood, Brian R Ballenger, Carl Stekler, Joanne D |
author_facet | Wood, Brian R Ballenger, Carl Stekler, Joanne D |
author_sort | Wood, Brian R |
collection | PubMed |
description | Approximately 60% of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals are unaware of their infection, and stigma and discrimination continue to threaten acceptance of HIV testing services worldwide. Self-testing for HIV has garnered controversy for years and the debate reignited with the approval of a point-of-care test for over-the-counter sale in the US in 2012. Here, we present arguments for and against HIV self-testing. The case in support of HIV self-testing contends that: the modality is highly acceptable, especially among the most at-risk individuals; self-testing empowers users, thus helping to normalize testing; and mutual partner testing has the potential to increase awareness of risk and avert condomless sex between discordant partners. Arguments against HIV self-testing include: cost limits access to those who need testing most; false-negative results, especially during the window period, may lead to false reassurance and could promote sex between discordant partners at the time of highest infectivity; opportunities for counseling, linkage to care, and diagnosis of other sexually transmitted infections may be missed; and self-testing leads to potential for coercion between partners. Research is needed to better define the risks of self-testing, especially as performance of the assays improves, and to delineate the benefits of programs designed to improve access to self-test kits, because this testing modality has numerous potential advantages and drawbacks. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4126574 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Dove Medical Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-41265742014-08-11 Arguments for and against HIV self-testing Wood, Brian R Ballenger, Carl Stekler, Joanne D HIV AIDS (Auckl) Review Approximately 60% of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals are unaware of their infection, and stigma and discrimination continue to threaten acceptance of HIV testing services worldwide. Self-testing for HIV has garnered controversy for years and the debate reignited with the approval of a point-of-care test for over-the-counter sale in the US in 2012. Here, we present arguments for and against HIV self-testing. The case in support of HIV self-testing contends that: the modality is highly acceptable, especially among the most at-risk individuals; self-testing empowers users, thus helping to normalize testing; and mutual partner testing has the potential to increase awareness of risk and avert condomless sex between discordant partners. Arguments against HIV self-testing include: cost limits access to those who need testing most; false-negative results, especially during the window period, may lead to false reassurance and could promote sex between discordant partners at the time of highest infectivity; opportunities for counseling, linkage to care, and diagnosis of other sexually transmitted infections may be missed; and self-testing leads to potential for coercion between partners. Research is needed to better define the risks of self-testing, especially as performance of the assays improves, and to delineate the benefits of programs designed to improve access to self-test kits, because this testing modality has numerous potential advantages and drawbacks. Dove Medical Press 2014-08-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4126574/ /pubmed/25114592 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/HIV.S49083 Text en © 2014 Wood et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. |
spellingShingle | Review Wood, Brian R Ballenger, Carl Stekler, Joanne D Arguments for and against HIV self-testing |
title | Arguments for and against HIV self-testing |
title_full | Arguments for and against HIV self-testing |
title_fullStr | Arguments for and against HIV self-testing |
title_full_unstemmed | Arguments for and against HIV self-testing |
title_short | Arguments for and against HIV self-testing |
title_sort | arguments for and against hiv self-testing |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4126574/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25114592 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/HIV.S49083 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT woodbrianr argumentsforandagainsthivselftesting AT ballengercarl argumentsforandagainsthivselftesting AT steklerjoanned argumentsforandagainsthivselftesting |