Preferences for oral- vs blood-based human immunodeficiency virus self-testing: A scoping review of the literature

BACKGROUND The evidence on preferences for oral- vs blood-based human immunodeficiency virus self-testing (HIVST) has been heterogenous and inconclusive. In addition, most evaluations have relied on hypothetical or stated use cases using discreet choice experiments rather than actual preferences among experienced users, which are more objective and critical for the understanding of product uptake. Direct head-to-head comparison of consumer preferences for oral- versus blood-based HIVST is lacking. AIM To examine the existing literature on preferences for oral- vs blood-based HIVST, determine the factors that impact these preferences, and assess the potential implications for HIVST programs. METHODS Databases such as PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, and Web of Science were searched for articles published between January 2011 to October 2022. Articles must address preferences for oral- vs blood-based HIVST. The study used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist to ensure the quality of the study. RESULTS The initial search revealed 2424 records, of which 8 studies were finally included in the scoping review. Pooled preference for blood-based HIVST was 48.8% (9%-78.6%), whereas pooled preference for oral HIVST was 59.8% (34.2%-91%) across all studies. However, for male-specific studies, the preference for blood-based HIVST (58%-65.6%) was higher than that for oral (34.2%-41%). The four studies that reported a higher preference for blood-based HIVST were in men. Participants considered blood-based HIVST to be more accurate and rapid, while those with a higher preference for oral HIVST did so because these were considered non-invasive and easy to use. CONCLUSION Consistently in the literature, men preferred blood-based HIVST over oral HIVST due to higher risk perception and desire for a test that provides higher accuracy coupled with rapidity, autonomy, privacy, and confidentiality, whereas those with a higher preference for oral HIVST did so because these were considered non-invasive and easy to use. Misinformation and distrust need to be addressed through promotional messaging to maximize the diversity of this new biomedical technology.