Preferences for oral- vs blood-based human immunodeficiency virus self-testing: A scoping review of the literature

Table 1 Search terms used in the literature search on preference for oral- vs blood-based human immunodeficiency self-testing in Nigeria

Search terms	OR	AND	AND
HIVST	HIV self-testing	HIV self-screening
HIV self-testing
HIVSS			HIV self-screening
HIV self-screening
Blood-based HIVST	Fingerstick HIVST		Capillary HIVST
Fingerstick HIVST
Capillary HIVST			Oral HIVST
Oral HIVST
Preference

Please note that the terms in the "OR" column are combined with an "OR" operator, whereas the terms in the "AND" columns are combined with an "AND" operator. The search strategy is designed to identify studies focusing on preferences for different HIV self-testing methods within the Nigerian context. HIV: Human immunodeficiency virus; HIVSS: HIV self-screening; HIVST: HIV self-testing.

Table 2 Summary of the included studies, n = 8

Ref.	Country	Study design	Type of specimen	Product type	Population, age in yr	Preference for oral, %	Preference for blood, %	Other findings
Tonen-Wolyec et al[14], 2020	The Republic of Congo	Cross-sectional	Oral vs Fingerstick	Oraquick, Exacto	General population,18-49	85.6	78.6	Comparable accuracy. University education and higher risk increases BB preference
Trabwongwitaya et al[15], 2022	Thailand	Cross-sectional	Oral vs Fingerstick	Oraquick, INSTI	Young adult KP,18-24	34.4	65.6	Performance and interpretation, O-93.3%, 100%; B-89.5%,98%
Cassell et al[19] , 2022	Cambodia	Cross-sectional	Oral vs Fingerstick	Oraquick, CombokitsAbbot	KPs, 15+	88.5	11.5	Assisted-98.6%; Unassisted-1.4%
Shapiro et al[20], 2020	South Africa	Cross-sectional	Oral vs Fingerstick	Oraquick, Atomo	Adult men, 18+	42	58	10% and 90% will prefer different and the same kit for repeat tests, respectively
Lippman et al[17], 20181	South Africa	Cross-sectional	Oral vs Fingerstick BB	Oraquick, Atomo	MSM	34.2	64.6	97% will use HIVST again if available in the future
Lee et al[16], 2022	Australia	Randomized Clinical Trial (RCT)	Oral vs Fingerstick	Oraquick, Atomo	MSM,18+	41	58	O-not swabbing both gum, placing buffer on stand; BB-filling test channel, squeezing finger for blood drop
Ritchwood et al[18], 2019	South Africa	Qualitative	Oral vs Fingerstick	Not stated	Young adult,18-24	80	20	Post-test opinion change on ease of use and trust in result
Gaydos et al[21], 2011	United State	Crosssectional	Oral vs Fingerstick	Oraquick, Unigold	Emergency department, 18-64	91	9	‘Trust in result’ O-similar for initial HCW-led and client ST (91%); B-client BBST result more (91.7%) than HCW provided HIV test (77.8%)

¹Indicates that it is a subsequent publication by the same author(s) in the same year. B: Blood; BBST: Blood-based self-testing; HCWs: Healthcare workers; HIV: Human immunodeficiency; KP: Key Population; MSM: Men who have sex with men; O: Oral; ST: Self-testing.