Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Introduction HIV self‐testing (HIVST) is recommended by the World Health Organization in addition to other testing modalities to increase uptake of HIV testing, particularly among harder‐to‐reach populations. This study provides the first empirical evidence of the costs of door‐to‐door community‐based HIVST distribution in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Methods HIVST kits were distributed door‐to‐door in 71 sites across Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe from June 2016 to May 2017. Programme expenditures, supplemented by on‐site observation and monitoring and evaluation data were used to estimate total economic and unit costs of HIVST distribution, by input and site. Inputs were categorized into start‐up, capital and recurrent costs. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to assess the impact of key parameters on unit costs. Results In total, 152,671, 103,589 and 93,459 HIVST kits were distributed in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe over 12, 11 and 10 months respectively. Across these countries, 43% to 51% of HIVST kits were distributed to men. The average cost per HIVST kit distributed was US$8.15, US$16.42 and US$13.84 in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe, respectively, with pronounced intersite variation within countries driven largely by site‐level fixed costs. Site‐level recurrent costs were 70% to 92% of full costs and 20% to 62% higher than routine HIV testing services (HTS) costs. Personnel costs contributed from 26% to 52% of total costs across countries reflecting differences in remuneration approaches and country GDP. Conclusions These early door‐to‐door community HIVST distribution programmes show large potential, both for reaching untested populations and for substantial economies of scale as HIVST programmes scale‐up and mature. From a societal perspective, the costs of HIVST appear similar to conventional HTS, with the higher providers’ costs substantially offsetting user costs. Future approaches to minimizing cost and/or maximize testing coverage could include unpaid door‐to‐door community‐led distribution to reach end‐users and integrating HIVST into routine clinical services via direct or secondary distribution strategies with lower fixed costs.

Introduction HIV self‐testing (HIVST) provides couples and individuals with a discreet, convenient and empowering testing option. As with all HIV testing, potential harms must be anticipated and mitigated to optimize individual and public health benefits. Here, we describe social harms (SHs) reported during HIVST implementation in Malawi, and propose a framework for grading and responding to harms, according to their severity. Methods We report findings from six HIVST implementation studies in Malawi (2011 to 2017) that included substudies investigating SH reports. Qualitative methods included focus group discussions, in‐depth interviews and critical incident interviews. Earlier studies used intensive quantitative methods (post‐test questionnaires for intimate partner violence, household surveys, investigation of all deaths in HIVST communities). Later studies used post‐marketing reporting with/without community engagement. Pharmacovigilance methodology (whereby potentially life‐threatening/changing events are defined as “serious”) was used to grade SH severity, assuming more complete passive reporting for serious events. Results During distribution of 175,683 HIVST kits, predominantly under passive SH reporting, 25 serious SHs were reported from 19 (0.011%) self‐testers, including 15 partners in eight couples with newly identified HIV discordancy, and one perinatally infected adolescent. There were no deaths or suicides. Marriage break‐up was the most commonly reported serious SH (sixteen individuals; eight couples), particularly among serodiscordant couples. Among new concordant HIV‐positive couples, blame and frustration was common but rarely (one episode) led to serious SHs. Among concordant HIV‐negative couples, increased trust and stronger relationships were reported. Coercion to test or disclose was generally considered “well‐intentioned” within established couples. Women felt empowered and were assertive when offering HIVST test kits to their partners. Some women who persuaded their partner to test, however, did report SHs, including verbal or physical abuse and economic hardship. Conclusions After more than six years of large‐scale HIVST implementation and in‐depth investigation of SHs in Malawi, we identified approximately one serious reported SH per 10,000 HIVST kits distributed, predominantly break‐up of married serodiscordant couples. Both “active” and “passive” reporting systems identified serious SH events, although with more complete capture by “active” systems. As HIVST is scaled‐up, efforts to support and further optimize community‐led SH monitoring should be prioritized alongside HIVST distribution.