A process evaluation of Community-led Distribution of HIV self-testing kits in rural communities in Zimbabwe
Clicks: 15
ID: 324564
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
4.2
/100
15 views
10 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #43 of 68 articles by views in Health policy and planning
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Community-led distribution of HIV self-test (HIVST) kits has potential to combine the benefits of community-based HIV testing with the strengths of community-led interventions. We report the process evaluation from the community-led arm of a cluster-randomized trial in rural Zimbabwe comparing community-led versus community-based HIVST distribution where distributors were paid. Twenty communities were supported to design HIVST distribution models that suited their context. We conducted community meetings where we introduced community-led HIVST, including messages on the benefits of viral load suppression (Undetectable=Untransmissible; "U=U"). Communities determined how, and by whom, distribution would be done. Communities implemented their distribution model over 4-6 weeks. We conducted in-depth interviews with community members (n=20), distributors (n=20) and health workers (n=20) as well as 12 focus group discussions (n=91) with community members. We triangulated findings with participant observations during community meetings and implementation and descriptively analysed program data on HIVST distribution. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. Participant observations found communities collaboratively developed and embraced HIVST distribution, demonstrating strong enthusiasm for participation. Messaging on U=U was met with interest and surprise, as many community members were unaware of this information, and became a key motivator for HIVST implementation and uptake. Across communities, 348 distributors distributed 27,812 kits door-to-door and/or from their homes or other community venues. Communities where model development was led by local leaders - rather than collective processes- expressed lower level of satisfaction and had slow implementation. Health workers supported HIVST distribution well, with opportunities for improvement noted. While distributors felt proud to deliver HIVST, many experienced logistical burdens, and need for material support from the programme and community. Communities designed HIVST delivery models that were acceptable and feasible, however efforts to make community-led models sustainable are critical. Delivering messages on U=U should continue to be prioritized and embedded within community-based HIVST distribution models.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7202125891
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Itai Kabonga, Lindiwe Mancitshana, Sharon Munhenzva, Nancy Ruhode, Mary Tumushime, Constancia Watadzaushe, Miriam Mutseta, Cheryl Johnson, Getrude Ncube, Karin Hatzold, Liz Corbett, Miriam Taegtmeyer, Frances M Cowan, Euphemia Sibanda |
| Journal | Health policy and planning |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/heapol/czag101
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.