AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 928–938 | Cite as

Acceptability and Feasibility of HIV Self-Testing Among Transgender Women in San Francisco: A Mixed Methods Pilot Study

  • Sheri A. LippmanEmail author
  • Lissa Moran
  • Jae Sevelius
  • Leslie S. Castillo
  • Angel Ventura
  • Sarah Treves-Kagan
  • Susan Buchbinder
Original Paper


An estimated one in four transgender women (trans women) in the U.S. are infected with HIV. Rates of HIV testing are not commensurate with their risk, necessitating alternative strategies for early detection and care. We explored the feasibility and acceptability of HIV self-testing (HIVST) with 50 HIV-negative adult trans women in San Francisco. Participants received three self-test kits to perform once a month. Acceptability and behavioral surveys were collected as were 11 in-depth interviews (IDIs). Among 50 participants, 44 reported utilizing HIVST at least once; 94 % reported the test easy to use; 93 % said results were easy to read; and 91 % would recommend it to others. Most participants (68 %) preferred HIVST to clinic-based testing, although price was a key barrier to uptake. IDIs revealed a tension between desires for privacy versus support found at testing sites. HIVST for trans women was acceptable and feasible and requires careful consideration of linkage to support services.


HIV HIV self-test HIV home-testing Transgender women Trans women 


Se estima que de una de cada cuatro mujeres transexuales (mujeres trans) en los Estados Unidos están infectadas con VIH. El uso de la prueba de VIH no es proporcional con el nivel riesgo de transmisión de la enfermedad, y son necesarias estrategias alternativas para su detección y atención temprana. Exploramos la viabilidad y aceptabilidad de la auto-prueba de VIH (HIVST por sus siglas en inglés) con 50 mujeres trans no portadoras del VIH en San Francisco. Las participantes recibieron tres kits de auto-prueba para usar una vez al mes. Encuestas de aceptabilidad y comportamiento fueron realizadas al igual que 11 entrevistas en profundidad (IDI por sus siglas en inglés). Entre las 50 participantes, 44 reportaron haber utilizado la HIVST al menos una vez; 94 % mencionaron que las pruebas fueron fáciles de usar; 93 % dijeron que los resultados fueron fáciles de leer; y el 91 % mencionó que recomendarían las pruebas a otras personas. La mayoría de las participantes (68 %) prefirió la auto-prueba a las pruebas hechas en clínicas, aunque su precio fue una limitante para su utilización. IDIs revelaron el conflicto entre el deseo de privacidad y el apoyo que se recibe en las clínicas. HIVST para mujeres trans fue aceptada y factible y requiere una cuidadosa consideración de como vincularla con los servicios de salud correspondientes.



We would like to express our gratitude to the study participants for their willingness to share their time and personal stories with our study team. Without their gracious participation, this study would not have been possible. We would also like to thank Enzo Patouhas for assisting with survey programming and study data collection. OraSure Technologies, Inc. donated the test kits, but did not participate in study design, analysis, or interpretation of the data. This research was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health, University of California, San Francisco-Gladstone Institute of Virology & Immunology Center for AIDS Research, P30-AI027763.


  1. 1.
    Clements-Nolle K, Marx R, Guzman R, Katz M. HIV prevalence, risk behaviors, health care use, and mental health status of transgender persons: implications for public health intervention. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(6):915–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Edwards JW, Fisher DG, Reynolds GL. Male-to-female transgender and transsexual clients of HIV service programs in Los Angeles County, California. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(6):1030–3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nemoto T, Operario D, Keatley J, Han L, Soma T. HIV risk behaviors among male-to-female transgender persons of color in San Francisco. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(7):1193–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nemoto T, Operario D, Keatley J, Villegas D. Social context of HIV risk behaviours among male-to-female transgenders of colour. AIDS Care. 2004;16(6):724–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herbst JH, Jacobs ED, Finlayson TJ, McKleroy VS, Neumann MS, Crepaz N. Estimating HIV prevalence and risk behaviors of transgender persons in the United States: a systematic review. AIDS Behav. 2008;12(1):1–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schulden J, Song B, Barros A, et al. Rapid HIV testing in transgender comunities by community-based organizations in three cities. Public Health Rep. 2008;123(Supplement 3):101–14.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schwarcz S, Scheer S. HIV testing behaviors and knowledge of HIV reporting regulations among male-to-female transgenders. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2004;37(2):1326–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gates GJ. How many people are lesbian, gay bisexual, and transgender? Los Angeles: The Williams Institute. UCLA School of Law. 2011.
  9. 9.
    Johnson C, Baggaley R, Forsythe S, et al. Realizing the potential for HIV self-testing. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(Suppl 4):S391–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lurie S. Identifying training needs of health-care providers related to treatment and care of transgendered patients: a qualitative needs assessment conducted in New England. Int J Transgenderism. 2005;8:93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nemoto T, Operario D, Keatley J. Health and social services for male-to-female transgender persons of color in san francisco. Int J Transgenderism. 2005;8:5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grant JM, Mottet LA, Tanis J, Herman JL, Harrison J, Keisling M. National Transgender Discrimination Survey Report on Health and Health Care. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; 2010.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carballo-Dieguez A, Frasca T, Dolezal C, Balan I. Will gay and bisexually active men at high risk of infection use over-the-counter rapid HIV tests to screen sexual partners? J Sex Res. 2012;49(4):379–87.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mackellar DA, Hou SI, Whalen CC, et al. Reasons for not HIV testing, testing intentions, and potential use of an over-the-counter rapid HIV test in an internet sample of men who have sex with men who have never tested for HIV. Sex Transm Dis. 2011;38(5):419–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sharma A, Sullivan PS, Khosropour CM. Willingness to take a free home HIV test and associated factors among internet-using men who have sex with men. J Int Assoc Physicians AIDS Care (Chic). 2011;10(6):357–64.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kearns AJ, O’Mathuna DP, Scott PA. Diagnostic self-testing: autonomous choices and relational responsibilities. Bioethics. 2010;24(4):199–207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA). OraQuick In-Home HIV Test. July 3, 2012.
  18. 18.
    Brennan J, Kuhns LM, Johnson AK, et al. Syndemic theory and HIV-related risk among young transgender women: the role of multiple, co-occurring health problems and social marginalization. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(9):1751–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    King N. Template analysis. In: Symon G, Cassell C, editors. Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research. London: Sage; 1998. p. 118–34.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ulin P, Robinson E, Tolley E. Qualitative Methods in Public Health: A Field Guide for Applied Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2005.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Miles M, Huberman M. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications; 1994.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krause J, Subklew-Sehume F, Kenyon C, Colebunders R. Acceptability of HIV self-testing: a systematic literature review. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:735.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pant Pai N, Sharma J, Shivkumar S, et al. Supervised and unsupervised self-testing for HIV in high- and low-risk populations: a systematic review. PLoS Med. 2013;10(4):e1001414.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ng OT, Chow AL, Lee VJ, et al. Accuracy and user-acceptability of HIV self-testing using an oral fluid-based HIV rapid test. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(9):e45168.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bradford J, Reisner SL, Honnold JA, Xavier J. Experiences of transgender-related discrimination and implications for health: results from the Virginia Transgender Health Initiative Study. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(10):1820–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Grant J, Mottet L, Tanis J, Harrison J, Herman J, Keisling M. Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Washington: National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; 2011.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Poteat T, Reisner SL, Radix A. HIV epidemics among transgender women. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2014;9(2):168–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sevelius JM, Keatley J, Gutierrez-Mock L. HIV/AIDS programming in the United States: considerations affecting transgender women and girls. Womens Health Issues. 2011;21(Suppl 6):S278–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sevelius JM, Patouhas E, Keatley JG, Johnson MO. Barriers and facilitators to engagement and retention in care among transgender women living with human immunodeficiency virus. Ann Behav Med. 2014;47(1):5–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Reisner SL, White JM, Bradford JB, Mimiaga MJ. Transgender health disparities: comparing full cohort and nested matched-pair study designs in a community health center. LGBT Health. 2014;1(3):177–84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sheri A. Lippman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lissa Moran
    • 1
  • Jae Sevelius
    • 1
  • Leslie S. Castillo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Angel Ventura
    • 1
  • Sarah Treves-Kagan
    • 1
  • Susan Buchbinder
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, Department of MedicineUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.University of California, Berkeley, School of Public HealthBerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.San Francisco Department of Public HealthBridge HIVSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations