Abstract
Introduction Young people have a disproportionate burden of sexually transmitted infections. Despite strengthening HIV prevention with the introduction of PrEP, STI services have remained relatively unchanged, and the standard of care remains syndromic management. We used a discrete choice experiment to investigate young people’s preferences for the diagnosis and treatment of STIs in South Africa.
Methods and Findings Between 1 March 2021 and 20 April 2021, a cross-sectional online questionnaire hosted on REDCap was administered through access links sent to WhatsApp support groups for HIV PrEP users and attendees of two primary healthcare clinics and two mobile facilities in the Eastern Cape and Gauteng provinces aged between 18-49 years. Participants either self-completed the questionnaire or received support from a research assistant. We used a CLOGIT model for the initial analysis and latent class model (LCM) to establish class memberships with results displayed as odds ratios and probabilities.
We enrolled 496 individuals, the majority were female (69%) and <30 years (74%). About 29% reported previous STI treatment and 20% reported current STI symptoms.
The LCM showed two distinct groups within the respondent sample with different preferences for STI care. The first group comprising 68% of participants showed a strong preference for self-sampling compared to sampling by a healthcare professional (HCP) [OR 2.32; 95%-CI (1.79-3.00)] and viewed no sampling as similar to HCP sampling [OR 1.08; 95%-CI (0.92-1.26)]. There was a lower preference to receive results within 4 hours versus 2 hours [OR 0.63; 95%-CI (0.51-0.77)] and the later was viewed as equal to the receipt of results in 1-7 days by SMS or online [OR 1.03; 95%-CI (0.88–1.21). A clinic follow-up appointment for treatment was less preferable than same-day treatment [OR 0.78; 95%-CI (0.63–0.95)] while treatment from a local pharmacy was viewed with equal preference as same-day treatment [OR 1.16; 95%-CI (1.04-1.29)]. Contact slip from index patient [OR 0.86; 95%-CI (0.76-0.96)] and HCP-initiated partner notification [OR 0.63; 95%-CI (0.55-0.73)] were both less preferable than expedited partner treatment (EPT). The second group included 32% of participants with a much lower preference for self-sampling compared to sampling by HCP [OR 0.55; 95%-CI (0.35–0.86)]. No sampling was not significantly different to HCP-sampling [OR 0.85; 95%-CI (0.64-1.13)]. There was a strong preference for a 4-hour wait than a 2-hour wait for results [OR 1.45; 95%-CI (1.05-2.00)]. There was no treatment option that was significantly different from the others, however there was a strong preference for HCP-initiated partner notification than EPT [OR 1.53; 95%-CI (1.10-2.12)]. Participants were more likely to be members of group 1 than group 2 if they were aged 25-49 years compared to 18-24 years (p=0.001) and receive care from a rural compared to urban facility (p=0.011). Employed individuals were more likely to be in group 2 than group 1 (p=0.038).
Conclusions Our results suggest that health service users preferred to undergo STI testing prior to treatment but there were subgroups who differed on how this should be done. This highlights the need for STI care to be flexible to accommodate different patient choices.
Competing Interest Statement
I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: CI has received conference support and research grants from Gilead Sciences. All other authors have declared that no competing interests exist
Funding Statement
This research was commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Policy and Systems Research programme using UK aid from the UK Government. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care (Grant No. NIHR130250). This funding was awarded to CI and SM (NIHR130250) PS is supported by Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa (CARTA). CARTA is jointly led by the African Population and Health Center and the University of the Witwatersrand and funded by the Carnegie Corporation of the New York (Grant No. B 8606.R02, SIDA (Grant No: 54100029), the DELTAS Africa Initiative (Grant No. 107768/Z/15/Z). The DELTAS Africa Initiative is an independent funding scheme of the African Academy of Sciences (AAS)?s Alliance for Accelerating Excellence in Science in Africa (AESA) and supported by the New Partnership for Africa?s Development Planning and Coordinating Agency (NEPAD Agency) with funding from the Wellcome Trust (UK) and the UK government. The statements made and views are solely the responsibility of the Fellow. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval from the study was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa (ref: M200445) and the Research Governance and Ethics Committee of the Brighton and Sussex Medical School, UK (ref: ER/BSMS9B5G/3).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
We will make the data available either as part of the final submission if the article is accepted or it will be hosted on the Institutional website. We will communicate which of these options will apply on acceptance of the article. Supplementary materials submitted as part of the main manuscript to PLOS MED
