Latent class analysis of acceptability and willingness to pay for self‐HIV testing in a United States urban neighbourhood with high rates of HIV infection

Introduction: Acceptability and willingness to both take and pay for HIV self‐tests (HIVSTs) in US neighbourhoods with high rates of HIV infection are not well understood. Methods: We surveyed 1,535 individuals about acceptability and willingness to take and pay for an HIVST in a predominately Afric...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of the International AIDS Society 2017-01, Vol.20 (1), p.21290-n/a
Hauptverfasser: Nunn, Amy, Brinkley‐Rubinstein, Lauren, Rose, Jennifer, Mayer, Kenneth, Stopka, Thomas, Towey, Caitlin, Harvey, Julia, Santamaria, Karina, Sabatino, Kelly, Trooskin, Stacey, Chan, Philip A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction: Acceptability and willingness to both take and pay for HIV self‐tests (HIVSTs) in US neighbourhoods with high rates of HIV infection are not well understood. Methods: We surveyed 1,535 individuals about acceptability and willingness to take and pay for an HIVST in a predominately African American neighbourhood with 3% HIV seroprevalence. We recruited individuals presenting for HIV screening services in a community‐based programme. Latent class analysis (LCA) grouped individuals with similar patterns of HIV‐risk behaviours and determined which groups would be most willing to use and buy HIVSTs. Results: Nearly 90% of respondents were willing to use an HIVST; 55% were willing to buy HIVSTs, but only 23% were willing to pay the market price of US $40. Four distinct groups emerged and were characterized by risk behaviours: (1) low risk (N = 324); (2) concurrent partnerships (N = 346); (3) incarceration and substance use (N = 293); and (4) condomless sex/multiple partners (N = 538). Individuals in the low‐risk class were less willing to self‐test compared to concurrent sexual partners (OR = 0.39, p = .003) and incarceration and substance use (OR = 0.46, p = .011) classes. There were no significant differences across classes in the amount individuals were willing to pay for an HIVST. Conclusions: HIVSTs were overwhelmingly acceptable but cost prohibitive; most participants were unwilling to pay the market rate of US $40. Subsidizing and implementing HIVST programmes in communities with high rates of infection present a public health opportunity, particularly among individuals reporting condomless sex with multiple partners, concurrent sexual partnerships and those with incarceration and substance use histories.
ISSN:1758-2652
1758-2652
DOI:10.7448/IAS.20.1.21290