The Utility of SMS to Report Male Partner HIV Self-testing Outcomes Among Women Seeking Reproductive Health Services in Kenya: Cohort Study (Preprint)

• DOI: 10.2196/preprints.15281
• Publication Date: 2020-03-25T14:46:11Z
• Authors: Alison L Drake; Emily Begnel; Jillian Pintye; John Kinuthia; Anjuli D Wagner; Claire W Rothschild; Felix Otieno; Valarie Kemunto; Jared M Baeten; Grace John-Stewart
• Keywords: Hiv test

<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> Use of SMS for data collection is expanding, but coverage, bias, and logistical constraints are poorly described. </sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> The aim this study to assess the use capture clinical outcomes that occur at home identify potential biases in reporting compared in-person ascertainment. <title>METHODS</title> In PrEP Implementation Young Women Adolescents program, which integrated pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) into antenatal care, postnatal family planning facilities Kisumu County, Kenya, HIV-negative women 14 years age or older were offered oral HIV self-tests (HIVSTs) take male partners. brought a phone with Safaricom SIM clinic registration an automated system (mSurvey) collect information on HIVST outcomes. asked if they test their partners, about process results. collected via (sent 2.5 weeks later), (if returned follow-up scheduled 1 month using both methods initiated PrEP, also had visits). prompted reply no charge. between visits those without (follow-up only who PrEP). in-person. <title>RESULTS</title> Among 2123 HIVSTs mSurvey registration, 486 (23.89%) accepted HIVSTs, whom 359 (73.87%) eligible mSurvey. Additionally, 76/170 (44.7%) 146/189 (77.3%) registered 76 follow-ups, 62 (82%) collected: 19 (31%) in-person, 20 (32%) by SMS, 23 (37%) methods. 146 visits, 87 (59.6%) 3 (3%) 82 (94%) 2 (2%) increased substantially (1.48-fold), captured additional reports from visits. 222 reported outcomes, frequencies offering partners (85/95, 89% vs 96/102, 94% SMS; &lt;i&gt;P&lt;/i&gt;=.31), (83/85, 98% 92/96, 96%; &lt;i&gt;P&lt;/i&gt;=.50), (82/83, 99% 91/92, 99%; &lt;i&gt;P&lt;/i&gt;=.94), seeing partner’s results 89/92, 97%; &lt;i&gt;P&lt;/i&gt;=.56) similar versus only. However, frequency experiencing harm negative reactions was more commonly group (17/102, 16.7% 2/85, 2%; &lt;i&gt;P&lt;/i&gt;=.003). Barriers included not having functioning phone. <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> Our suggest improves completeness outcome data, does bias nonsensitive information, may increase sensitive information.