Introduction The HIV epidemic in Vietnam is concentrated in key populations and their partners – people who inject drugs, men who have sex with men, sex workers and partners of people living with HIV. These groups have poor access to and uptake of conventional HIV testing services (HTS). To address this gap, lay provider‐ and self‐testing and assisted partner notification (aPN) were introduced and delivered by the community. We explored the feasibility and effectiveness of implementing aPN as part of community testing services for key populations. Methods Lay provider testing and self‐testing was started in January 2017, and targeted key populations and their partners. Since July 2017, aPN was introduced. HTS was offered at drop‐in houses or coffee shops in Thai Nguyen and Can Tho provinces. All self‐testing was assisted and observed by peer educators. Both in‐person and social network methods were used to mobilize key populations to test for HIV and offer HTS to partners of people living with HIV. Client‐level data, including demographic information and self‐reported risk behaviour, were collected on site by peer educators. Results Between January 2017 and May 2018, 3978 persons from key populations were tested through community‐led HTS; 66.7% were first‐time testers. Of the 3978 clients, 3086 received HTS from a lay provider and 892 self‐tested in the presence of a lay provider. Overall, 245 (6.2% of tested clients) had reactive results, 231 (94.3%) were confirmed to be HIV positive; 215/231 (93.1%) initiated antiretroviral therapy (ART). Of 231 adult HIV‐positive clients, 186 (80.5%) were provided voluntary aPN, and 105 of their partners were contacted and received HTS. The ratio of partners who tested for HIV per index client was 0.56. Forty‐four (41.9%) partners of index clients receiving HTS were diagnosed with HIV, 97.7% initiated ART during the study period. No social harm was identified or reported. Conclusions Including aPN as part of community‐led HTS for key populations and their partners is feasible and effective, particularly for reaching first‐time testers and undiagnosed HIV clients. Scale‐up of aPN within community‐led HTS for key populations is essential for achieving the United Nations 90‐90‐90 targets in Vietnam.

HIV self-testing has emerged as a safe and effective approach to increase the access to and uptake of HIV testing and treatment, especially for key populations. Applying self-testing to hepatitis C virus (HCV) may also offer an additional way to address low coverage of HCV testing and to accelerate elimination efforts. To understand the potential for HCV self-testing (HCVST), an observational study was conducted to assess the acceptability and usability of the OraQuick® HCV Self-Test (prototype) among people who inject drugs (PWID) and men who have sex with men (MSM) in Thai Nguyen, a province in northern Vietnam. A total of 105 PWID and 104 MSM were eligible and agreed to participate in the study. Acceptability, defined as the proportion of participants among eligible subjects who agreed to participate in the study, was 92.9% in PWID and 98.6% in MSM. Compared to MSM, PWID were older (median age: 45 vs. 22 years; p < 0.0001) and had a lower education level (high school and college: 38.1% vs. 100%; p < 0.0001). HCVST usability was high among MSM with fewer observed mistakes, difficulties, or participants requiring assistance (33.7%, 28.8%, and 17.3%, respectively) compared to PWID (62.9%, 53.3%, and 66.7%, respectively; all p < 0.0001)). Inter-reader and inter-operator agreement were good in both groups (Kappa coefficient range: 0.61–0.99). However, the concordance between HCVST and study staff -read or performed HCV testing was lower among PWID than MSM (inter-reader concordance 88.6% vs. 99.0% and inter-operator concordance 81.9% vs. 99%). Overall, HCVST was highly acceptable with moderate to high usability among PWID and MSM in Thai Nguyen. Efforts to provide support and assistance may be needed to optimize performance, particularly for PWID populations and for those who are older and with lower literacy or education levels.

Introduction Stigma and discrimination are important barriers to HIV epidemic control. We implemented a multi‐pronged facility‐level intervention to reduce stigma and discrimination at health facilities across three high‐burden provinces. Key components of the intervention included measurement of stigma, data review and use, participatory training of healthcare workers (HCWs), and engagement of people living with HIV and key populations in all stigma reduction activities. Methods From July 2018 to July 2019, we assessed HIV‐related stigma and discrimination among patients and HCWs at 10 facilities at baseline and 9 months following an intervention. A repeated measures design was used to assess the change in stigma and discrimination among HCWs and a repeated cross‐sectional design assessed the change in stigma and discrimination experienced by PLHIV. HCWs at target facilities were invited at random and PLHIV were recruited when presenting for care during the two assessment periods. McNemar's test was used to compare paired proportions among HCWs, and chi‐square test was used to compare proportions among PLHIV. Mixed models were used to compare outcomes before and after the intervention. Results Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 649 and 652 PLHIV prior to and following the intervention, respectively. At baseline, over the previous 12 months, 21% reported experiencing discrimination, 16% reported self‐stigma, 14% reported HIV disclosure without consent and 7% had received discriminatory reproductive health advice. Nine months after the intervention, there was a decrease in reported stigma and discrimination across all domains to 15%, 11%, 7% and 3.5%, respectively (all p‐values <0.05). Among HCWs, 672 completed the pre‐ and post‐intervention assessment. At baseline, 81% reported fear of HIV infection, 69% reported using unnecessary precautions when caring for PLHIV, 44% reported having observed other staff discriminate against PLHIV, 54% reported negative attitudes towards PLHIV and 41% felt uncomfortable working with colleagues living with HIV. The proportions decreased after the intervention to 52%, 34%, 32%, 35% and 24%, respectively (all p‐values <0.05). Conclusions A multi‐pronged facility‐level intervention was successful at reducing healthcare‐associated HIV‐related stigma in Vietnam. The findings support the scale‐up of this intervention in Vietnam and highlight key components potentially applicable in other settings.