The Utility of SMS to Report Male Partner HIV Self-testing Outcomes Among Women Seeking Reproductive Health Services in Kenya: Cohort Study (Preprint)
Authors: Drake Alison L , Begnel Emily , Pintye Jillian , Kinuthia John , Wagner Anjuli D , Rothschild Claire W , Otieno Felix , Kemunto Valarie , Baeten Jared M , John-Stewart Grace 
Published: March 2020

BACKGROUND

Use of SMS for data collection is expanding, but coverage, bias, and logistical constraints are poorly described.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to assess the use of SMS to capture clinical outcomes that occur at home and identify potential biases in reporting compared to in-person ascertainment.

METHODS

In the PrEP Implementation in Young Women and Adolescents program, which integrated pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) into antenatal care, postnatal care, and family planning facilities in Kisumu County, Kenya, HIV-negative women 14 years of age or older were offered oral HIV self-tests (HIVSTs) to take home to male partners. Women that brought a phone with a Safaricom SIM to the clinic were offered registration in an automated SMS system (mSurvey) to collect information on HIVST outcomes. Women were asked if they offered the test to their male partners, and asked about the test process and results. HIVST outcomes were collected via SMS (sent 2.5 weeks later), in-person (if women returned for a follow-up scheduled 1 month later), or using both methods (if women initiated PrEP, they also had scheduled follow-up visits). The SMS prompted women to reply at no charge. HIVST outcomes were compared between women with scheduled follow-up visits and those without (follow-up visits were only scheduled for women who initiated PrEP). HIVST outcomes were also compared between women reporting via SMS and in-person.

RESULTS

Among 2123 women offered HIVSTs and mSurvey registration, 486 (23.89%) accepted HIVSTs, of whom 359 (73.87%) were eligible for mSurvey. Additionally, 76/170 (44.7%) women with scheduled follow-up visits and 146/189 (77.3%) without scheduled follow-up visits registered in mSurvey. Among the 76 women with scheduled follow-ups, 62 (82%) had HIVST outcomes collected: 19 (31%) in-person, 20 (32%) by SMS, and 23 (37%) using both methods. Among the 146 women without scheduled visits, 87 (59.6%) had HIVST outcomes collected: 3 (3%) in-person, 82 (94%) by SMS, and 2 (2%) using both methods. SMS increased the collection of HIVST outcomes substantially for women with scheduled follow-up visits (1.48-fold), and captured 82 additional reports from women without scheduled follow-up visits. Among 222 women with reported HIVST outcomes, frequencies of offering partners the HIVST (85/95, 89% in-person vs 96/102, 94% SMS; <i>P</i>=.31), partners using the HIVST (83/85, 98% vs 92/96, 96%; <i>P</i>=.50), women using HIVST with partners (82/83, 99% vs 91/92, 99%; <i>P</i>=.94), and seeing partner’s HIVST results (82/83, 99% vs 89/92, 97%; <i>P</i>=.56) were similar between women reporting in-person only versus by SMS only. However, frequency of reports of experiencing harm or negative reactions from partners was more commonly reported in the SMS group (17/102, 16.7% vs 2/85, 2%; <i>P</i>=.003). Barriers to the SMS system registration included not having a Safaricom SIM or a functioning phone.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the use of SMS substantially improves completeness of outcome data, does not bias reporting of nonsensitive information, and may increase reporting of sensitive information.