Search

ObjectivesHIV testing is the gateway to HIV prevention and care services. Female sex workers (FSW) may benefit from HIV self-testing (HIVST), which offers greater control and confidentiality than other approaches. However, FSW also have unique vulnerabilities, making it critical to understand their perspective of HIVST to best contextualise HIVST to their needs. This study explored feasibility and acceptability of providing oral fluid-based peer-led HIVST to FSW to inform tailored HIVST delivery approaches.DesignQualitative study.SettingMalawi.ParticipantsThirty-nine FSW who had obtained a HIVST kit and eight peer distributors.ResultsPeer distributors’ accounts suggested that peer-led HIVST is feasible. Overall, FSW spoke positively about peer-led HIVST and younger FSW preferred it to facility-based HIV testing. FSW highlighted both greater control of their testing experience and that HIVST could allow them to avoid discriminatory attitudes frequently experienced in public facilities. Some also felt that HIVST kits could enable them to establish the HIV status of their sexual partners, better informing their decisions about condomless sex. Despite overall acceptance of HIVST, a few expressed doubts in the procedure. Some FSW already aware of their HIV-positive status reported using HIVST. A few accounts suggested peer pressure to self-test predominantly from peer distributors.ConclusionsThis study enabled us to explore feasibility and acceptability of peer-led HIVST among FSW, as well as potential shortcomings of the HIV testing modality. Peer distributors are a welcome additional model. However, they should avoid distribution in actual venues. Programmes should ensure a range of testing options are available and expand peer’s representation. Study findings will be used to tailor the HIVST distribution model to ensure its enhanced uptake among key populations in general and FSW, specifically.

ObjectivesPatient and public involvement (PPI) in research priority-setting remains limited, especially for non-HIV STI. We identify and compare the top 10 patient and public STI research priorities with those of clinicians and STI stakeholders.MethodsThis two-stage study was conducted in May–August 2019. First, STI research priorities were canvassed through qualitative questionnaires issued to all patients attending a large sexual health clinic, all clinicians in region-wide mailing lists, all stakeholders identified through existing networks and the Charity Commission database, and to the Liverpool public. Raw responses were organised by theme into a shortlist of 25. In stage 2, these were ranked through priority-setting activities by telephone with patients and the public (n=8) and some clinicians (n=3), and in two workshops with clinicians (n=26) and stakeholders (n=5), respectively. The top 10 priorities were compared.ResultsOf 373 surveys submitted, 106 were analysed (83 patient and public; 23 clinician and stakeholder). Exclusions included lack of completion and responses out of scope. Among patient and public respondents, 55% (n=46) were aged 18–24 years, 51% (n=42) identified as heterosexual women and 23% (n=19) as men who have sex with men. Clinicians included all cadres; stakeholders were academics, commissioners and third sector representatives. In stage 2, 4 of 10 themes (STI education, targeted services for high-risk groups, antibiotic resistance and counselling for those with STI) were prioritised by all. Remote STI services and rapid diagnostics also ranked highly but the rationale differed between groups.ConclusionThis is the first non-HIV STI research priority-setting exercise to be reported in the UK. It identifies overlaps and differences between public and provider concerns, highlights gaps in the public understanding of STI research, and shows how PPI can promote research responsive to the concerns of both those who use and deliver services.