Reaching hard-to-reach men through home-based couple HIV testing among pregnant women and their male partners in western Kenya: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Globally only 79% of adults living with HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) know their status and men in sub-Saharan Africa are considered a particularly hard-to-reach population for HIV testing. Home-based HIV couple testing during the antenatal period is a safe and effective method that has been used to test male partners of pregnant women. The goal of this qualitative study was to identify elements that made couple testing successful and describe important characteristics of this home-based intervention from couples' perspectives. METHODS: Couples who received scheduled home-based couple testing during pregnancy in Kisumu, Kenya, were purposively sampled based on HIV status from January to May 2015. An interviewer administered all of the in-depth interviews and two coders were directly involved in the data analysis and reconciled codes several times in the process. RESULTS: Twenty-one couples were enrolled: 9 concordant HIV-negative couples, 8 HIV discordant couples, 3 HIV concordant HIV-positive couples, and 1 whose concordance status was unknown. Median age at the time of home-based couple testing was 24 and 28 years for women and men, respectively. Median relationship duration was 3 years and couples had a median of two pregnancies. The major themes that emerged were that home-based couple testing 1) removed the female burden of requesting couple testing, 2) overcame logistical barriers associated with clinic-based testing, 3) encouraged participants to overcome their fear of testing and disclosure, 4) provided privacy in the home, and 5) provided quality time with the health advisors. Importantly, some women appreciated individual testing at the clinic before couple testing and some couples preferred skilled, anonymous health advisors delivering the intervention rather than known community health workers. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this qualitative study suggest that home-based couple testing during pregnancy overcame many of the barriers that limit men's access to and uptake of clinic-based testing. It encouraged participants to overcome their fear of testing and disclosure through a setting that afforded privacy and quality time with skilled health advisors. These qualitative results may help design effective partner and couple HIV testing programs in the antenatal setting and alongside or within other assisted partner notification services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov registry: NCT01784783. Registered prospectively on June 15, 2012.

Male Partner Linkage to Clinic-Based Services for Sexually Transmitted Infections and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Services Following Couple Home-Based Education and Testing.

BACKGROUND: Home-based human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing and education has increased HIV test uptake and access to health services among men. We studied how a home-based antenatal intervention influenced male partner utilization of clinic-based HIV and sexually transmitted infection (STI) services, linkage to HIV care and medical circumcision. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis within a randomized controlled trial of pregnant women attending antenatal care in Kenya. Women and their male partners received either a home-based couple intervention or an invitation letter for clinic-based couple HIV testing. The home-based intervention included education on STI symptoms, STI and HIV treatment and male circumcision for HIV prevention. Male self-reported outcomes were compared using relative risks at 6 months postpartum. RESULTS: Among 525 women, we reached 487 (93%) of their male partners; 247 men in the intervention arm and 240 men in the control arm. Men who received the intervention were more likely to report an STI consultation (n = 47 vs. 16; relative risk, 1.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-1.89). Among 23 men with newly diagnosed HIV, linkage to HIV care was reported by 4 of 15 in the intervention (3 men had missing linkage data) and 3 of 5 men in the control arms (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-1.29). Although the intervention identified 3 times more men with new HIV infection, the study lacked power to find significant differences in linkage to HIV care. Few eligible men sought medical circumcision (4 of 72 intervention and 2 of 88 control). CONCLUSIONS: Home-based couple education and testing increased STI consultations among male partners of pregnant women, but appeared insufficient to overcome the barriers involved in linkage to HIV care and medical circumcision.

Uptake of Home-Based Syphilis and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Testing Among Male Partners of Pregnant Women in Western Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Few men are tested for syphilis or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) during their partner's pregnancy, a high-risk period for HIV and syphilis transmission. Offering home-based rapid testing of syphilis to couples during pregnancy can support prevention efforts to reduce transmission of sexually transmitted diseases and adverse pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: We assessed men's uptake of paired (separate tests, single blood draw) point-of-care syphilis and HIV tests within a randomized controlled trial of pregnant women who received clinic or home partner HIV testing. We evaluated acceptance of paired HIV-syphilis testing during pregnancy or at 6 months postpartum, and evaluated whether addition of syphilis testing affected the uptake of HIV testing among men. RESULTS: Of 601 women, we were unable to meet 101 male partners, and 180 tested before syphilis tests were available. Paired syphilis and HIV testing was offered at home to 80 men during pregnancy and to 230 men postpartum. For syphilis, 93% of men agreed to test during pregnancy and 98% agreed postpartum. For paired syphilis and HIV testing, 91% of men tested for both during pregnancy and 96% tested postpartum. Before syphilis test introduction, 96% of men accepted HIV testing, compared with 95% of men who accepted HIV testing when paired testing was offered. CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of syphilis and HIV testing was high among male partners offered couple testing at home. Introducing syphilis testing did not adversely affect HIV testing among men. Point-of-care diagnostics outside facilities can increase testing of male partners who rarely accompany women to antenatal clinics.

Home-Based HIV Testing Among Pregnant Couples Increases Partner Testing and Identification of Serodiscordant Partnerships.

INTRODUCTION: Male partner HIV testing has been recognized as an important component of prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission. Scheduled home-based couple HIV testing may be an effective strategy to reach men. METHODS: Women attending their first antenatal visit at Kisumu County Hospital in Kenya were randomized to home-based education and HIV testing within 2 weeks of enrollment (HOPE) or to written invitations for male partners to attend clinic (INVITE). Male partner HIV testing and maternal child health outcomes were compared at 6 months postpartum. RESULTS: Of 1101 women screened, 620 were eligible and 601 were randomized to HOPE (n = 306) or INVITE (n = 295). At 6 months postpartum, male partners were more than twice as likely [relative risk (RR) = 2.10; 95% CI (CI): 1.81 to 2.42] to have been HIV tested in the HOPE arm [233 (87%)] compared with the INVITE arm [108 (39%)]. Couples in the HOPE arm [192 (77%)] were 3 times as likely (RR = 3.17; 95% CI: 2.53 to 3.98) to have been tested as a couple as the INVITE arm [62 (24%)] and women in the HOPE arm [217 (88%)] were also twice as likely (RR = 2.27; 95% CI: 1.93 to 2.67) to know their partner's HIV status as the INVITE arm [98 (39%)]. More serodiscordant couples were identified in the HOPE arm [33 (13%)] than in the INVITE arm [10 (4%)] (RR = 3.38; 95% CI: 1.70 to 6.71). Maternal child health outcomes of facility delivery, postpartum family planning, and exclusive breastfeeding did not vary by arm. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based HIV testing for pregnant couples resulted in higher uptake of male partner and couple testing, as well as higher rates of HIV status disclosure and identification of serodiscordant couples. However, the intervention did not result in higher uptake of maternal child health outcomes, because facility delivery and postpartum family planning were high in both arms, whereas exclusive breastfeeding was low. The HOPE intervention was successful at its primary aim to increase HIV testing and disclosure among pregnant couples and was able to find more serodiscordant couples compared with the invitation-only strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov registry: NCT01784783.

Modeling the Cost-Effectiveness of Home-Based HIV Testing and Education (HOPE) for Pregnant Women and Their Male Partners in Nyanza Province, Kenya.

INTRODUCTION: Women in sub-Saharan Africa face a 2-fold higher risk of HIV acquisition during pregnancy and postpartum and the majority do not know the HIV status of their male partner. Home-based couple HIV testing for pregnant women can reduce HIV transmission to women and infants while increasing antiretroviral therapy (ART) coverage in men. However, the cost-effectiveness of this program has not been evaluated. METHODS: We modeled the health and economic impact of implementing a home-based partner education and HIV testing (HOPE) intervention for pregnant women and their male partners in a region of Western Kenya (formally Nyanza Province). We used data from the HOPE randomized clinical trial conducted in Kisumu, Kenya, to parameterize a mathematical model of HIV transmission. We conducted an in-country microcosting of the HOPE intervention (payer perspective) to estimate program costs as well as a lower cost scenario of task-shifting to community health workers. RESULTS: The incremental cost of adding the HOPE intervention to standard antenatal care was $31-37 and $14-16 USD per couple tested with program and task-shifting costs, respectively. At 60% coverage of male partners, HOPE was projected to avert 6987 HIV infections and 2603 deaths in Nyanza province over 10 years with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $886 and $615 per disability-adjusted life year averted for the program and task-shifting scenario, respectively. ICERs were robust to changes in intervention coverage, effectiveness, and ART initiation and dropout rates. CONCLUSIONS: The HOPE intervention can moderately decrease HIV-associated morbidity and mortality by increasing ART coverage in male partners of pregnant women. ICERs fall below Kenya's per capita gross domestic product ($1358) and are therefore considered cost-effective. Task-shifting to community health workers can increase intervention affordability and feasibility.