↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Arguments for and against HIV self-testing

Overview of attention for article published in HIV/AIDS (Auckland, N.Z.), August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#43 of 330)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
106 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
206 Mendeley
Title
Arguments for and against HIV self-testing
Published in
HIV/AIDS (Auckland, N.Z.), August 2014
DOI 10.2147/hiv.s49083
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian R Wood, Carl Ballenger, Joanne D Stekler

Abstract

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 206 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 203 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 21%
Researcher 27 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 11%
Student > Bachelor 19 9%
Student > Postgraduate 15 7%
Other 23 11%
Unknown 56 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 11%
Social Sciences 23 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Other 24 12%
Unknown 64 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 January 2018.
All research outputs
#5,156,627
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from HIV/AIDS (Auckland, N.Z.)
#43
of 330 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,154
of 240,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HIV/AIDS (Auckland, N.Z.)
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 330 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 240,206 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them