Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 May 29;15(5):e0233698. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233698

The 4 youth by youth HIV self-testing crowdsourcing contest: A qualitative evaluation

Juliet Iwelunmor 1,*, Oliver Ezechi 2, Chisom Obiezu-Umeh 1, Titilola Gbaja-Biamila 2, Ucheoma Nwaozuru 1, David Oladele 2, Adesola Z Musa 2, Ifeoma Idigbe 2, Florida Uzoaru 1, Collins Airhihenbuwa 3, Kathryn Muessig 4, Donaldson F Conserve 5, Bill Kapogiannis 6, Joseph D Tucker 7,8
Editor: Joseph KB Matovu9
PMCID: PMC7259504  PMID: 32469971

Abstract

Introduction

Crowdsourcing, a participatory approach to solicit ideas from a large group of diverse individuals, provides an opportunity to nurture youth participation in HIV self-testing service design. The objective of this study was to describe the responses to a crowdsourcing contest aimed at soliciting ideas on how to promote HIV self-testing (HIVST) among young people in Nigeria.

Methods

The “4 Youth by Youth” HIV Self-Testing Crowdsourcing contest was an online and off-line contest that asked Nigerian youth (10–24 years old) for ideas in response to the following: How might we promote HIVST among young people in Nigeria? All data were collected and analyzed between October 2018, and June 2019. Ideas and perceptions generated from the crowdsourcing contest were qualitatively analyzed using thematic content analysis. Specifically, four reviewers analyzed whether the ideas generated were desirable (appealing to young people), feasible (easy to implement) and impactful (will significantly influence HIVST uptake among young people).

Results

A total of 903 entries were received in response to the contest prompt. Participants submitted entries in various forms: online form (39.7%), offline Dropbox (44.6%), email (6.1%) and WhatsApp (9.7%). Of the total entries, 85% (n = 769/903) entries were eligible and were scored as having either high, moderate or low level of feasibility, impact and desirability, on a 3-point Likert scale. A significant portion of the entries were given a score of 3 for feasibility (4.9%), desirability (7.1%), impact (3.0%) or a total overall score of 7 or more (8.2%). The three main themes that emerged from the entries include:1) Peer-to-peer distribution and leveraging on existing infrastructures 2) Youth-Oriented Branding of the HIVST Kit 3) Mobile platforms and social media technology.

Conclusion

The “4 Youth by Youth” Self-Testing contest engaged a broad audience of young people to generate ideas and perspectives on how to promote HIVST. This process informed the development of youth innovated implementation strategies to increase uptake of HIVST among adolescents and youth at risk for HIV.

Introduction

Despite the advances made in the HIV research arena, including several groundbreaking milestones in biomedical prevention of HIV infection, the rate of new HIV infections among youth at risk has steadily increased over the past decade [1]. Nigerian youth are at the epicenter of an expanding HIV crisis, with the second largest number of new youth HIV infections of any country and nearly one in five youth aged 15–24 have never tested for HIV [2]. Individual (i.e. low perceptions of risk) [3, 4], social (gender norms) [5], and structural (i.e. costs, stigma) barriers [24, 6] remain serious challenges to the delivery of youth-friendly HIV prevention services, including HIV testing for young people in Nigeria [7].

HIV self-testing (HIVST) can mitigate some of these barriers by decentralizing spaces for HIV testing as individuals collect their own specimen and receive results in privacy [812] thus decreasing stigma. HIVST has shown promise for linking HIV-negative youth to prevention services and HIV-positive youth to treatment and care [1316]. Thus, more young people who may not otherwise test are empowered to do so discreetly and conveniently [12, 17, 18]. The World Health Organization [9] and the Nigerian National AIDS Strategic Framework [19] recommend HIVST as an additional approach to delivering HIV testing services. HIVST benefits include convenience, simplicity, privacy, confidentiality, and autonomy in controlling one’s health [14, 15, 18, 2022]. However, there are few HIVST programs that are focused on serving young people [14, 23, 24] or organized by youth themselves [25, 26] and none have been neither led by youth nor rigorously evaluated to see if they improve HIV testing rates in youth.

Crowdsourcing, the process of shifting a task to a large group of people in the form of a contest or open call and then sharing solutions with the public, may be useful to create HIVST services tailored for young people [2730]. One major benefit of crowdsourcing is that the solutions are often appropriate and highly relevant to the intended audience or key stakeholders who themselves are directly involved in creating and/or implementing the proposed solutions [28, 31, 32]. Prior research has used crowdsourcing to determine youth preferences for asthma self-management [33], multilingual health promotion messages for oral health [34], peer-generated messages for alcohol prevention programs [35], and to solicit videos to promote HIV testing [27, 36].

We launched an open challenge contest to elicit youth perspectives and preferences for promoting HIVST within Nigeria (i.e. what, when, where, or who distributes HIVST). Specifically, we focused on Nigerian youth ages 10–24 as potential end-users of HIVST as they remain at increased risk for acquiring HIV, yet the majority are unaware of their status. The purpose of this study is to examine youth responses to an HIVST crowdsourcing contest in Nigeria to promote the uptake of HIVST among young people.

Methods

The contest

A challenge contest was organized and hosted by the 4 Youth by Youth (4YBY) group, which is a team of young people, health professionals, activists, and entrepreneurs from diverse backgrounds, who are united by the shared passion to advance Nigerian youth participation in creating innovative, sustainable HIV services. The contest was called “The World AIDS Day HIV Self-Testing Contest” to mark the annual global December 1st World AIDS Day event in Lagos, Nigeria. The goal of the contest was to solicit ideas and/or concepts in response to the following prompt: How might we promote HIVST among young people in Nigeria? The hashtag “HIVSELFTESTINGCONTEST” identified the campaign on social media platforms. To hold the contest, we organized a multi-sectoral contest advisory panel; engaged youth from diverse backgrounds and cultures to participate; evaluated ideas based on pre-specified criteria; selected the top 30 finalists and invited them to deliver a 3-minute pitch of their idea to a panel of judges on World AIDS Day; and announced finalists and winners by end of Day event. In organizing the contest, we used the TDR Practical Guide on Crowdsourcing in Health and Health Research.[37] This research was approved by the Saint Louis University Ethics Committee and the Nigerian Institute of Medical Research Ethics Review Board.

Establishment of an advisory panel

A multisectoral contest advisory panel was established with representation from key stakeholders involved with youth and community engagement, including 4YBY youth ambassadors, crowdsourcing experts, HIV prevention researchers, entrepreneurs and communication experts with keen knowledge of the Nigerian context. The contest advisory panel guided the overall development, promotion and evaluation of the contest.

Participant recruitment and dissemination of the call for entries

We invited all young people between the ages of 10 to 24 years in Nigeria to participate in the HIVST-themed crowdsourcing contest. We utilized purposive sampling techniques to ensure that a range of young people from diverse backgrounds were engaged. From October 1, 2018 to November 16, 2018, an open call was disseminated online on social media sites such as Facebook and Instagram as well as in-person events within secondary schools, universities and community centers where young people congregate. In-person events held to promote the contest included presentations led by contest organizers, with feedback sessions to answer questions. In collaboration with a Nigerian communications company, a short video was developed and posted online on the 4YBY website to promote the contest. In addition, a member of the 4YBY youth ambassadors promoted the contest at five secondary schools in three different local government areas (LGA) in Lagos state and encouraged students in those schools to apply for the HIV open challenge contest. Contest fliers were sent to ten individual schools and 6 educational district officers in Lagos state. Finally, three 4YBY ambassadors announced to their peers in universities about the contest and placed contest banners at strategic campus locations.

Contest platform and data collection

The initial selection criteria were that participants had to be between the ages of 10 to 24 years, and residing in Nigeria, and their ideas had to describe novel strategies to promote uptake of HIVST among Nigerian youth in English. Participants submitted demographic details upon submission, including, contact information, age, current location, sex, occupation and, level of education. Submission of entries could be in form of written descriptions (150 words or less), images, drawings, posters, videos, taglines, describing how to promote HIVST among young people in Nigeria. Participants were given the option to submit their ideas either online (via Google online forms, WhatsApp or email) or offline (paper-based version, handwritten or typed). Participants interested in joining the contest completed written informed consent either online or offline. Participants had the opportunity to pose questions to the study team via social media, WhatsApp messaging or Email.

Evaluation of Ideas

The eligible entries were further reviewed by four contest organizers and rated based on their feasibility, desirability and impact using a 3-point scale (3 = high, 2 = moderate or 1 = low level), which was adapted from the human-centered, design thinking framework [38]. Two members of the research team initially screened all 903 entries received for duplicates and relevance to the scope of the contest. Entries that could not be scored for any of the three criteria, entries from participants above 25 years, and those that were duplicate submissions were excluded from further analysis. Subsequently, each of the four reviewers independently rated the ideas submitted using the following three criteria: 1) desirability- Is the idea appealing to youth? Does the idea meet the needs (low-cost, accessible, confidential) of young people?; 2) feasibility- Can the idea be easy to implement? Are the resources available to execute the idea?; and 3) Impact- Will the idea significantly influence young people to self-test for HIV? Is the idea able to reach young people in Nigeria when available? Finally, the scores for the three criteria were summed to generate an overall score for each of the entries with a range of 3 to 9. Entries that received an overall score greater than 7 (pre-specified by the advisory panel) on a scale of 3–9 were invited to present a 3-minute pitch at the annual World AIDS Day event. Three members of the contest advisory panel and two key community stakeholders served as the judges for the event. The top three finalists, based on cumulative votes by the judges, were selected and awarded prizes.

Data analysis and coding

After the contest was completed, each participant entry was deidentified and transcribed to allow for a thematic analysis of data [39, 40]. Transcripts were coded by research staff trained in qualitative analysis methods and entered in Microsoft Excel 2016. Descriptive statistics were used to describe participant demographics and characteristics of the submissions in SAS version 9.4. Entries were initially coded by 4 trained research staff (JI, CO, UN and FU) and content analysis was performed to code the data and identify similar patterns or categories. A modifiable coding sheet informed by the data was used to code the entries to identify commonalities and differences between the data. Following initial coding, the entries were reread to refine the coding sheet and a sample of transcripts were provided by two of the researcher staff, external to the study team, who independently reviewed and confirmed themes and coding. Once the themes and sub-themes were finalized, CO and UN conducted the final coding of the entries. A third researcher confirmed the analysis and resolved any discrepancies that occurred with the coding process. The Consolidated Criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) guided the reporting of the results.

Results

Key characteristics and quality of contest entries

A total of 903 entries were submitted by young Nigerians between the ages of 10 to 24 years in response to the open challenge contest call. Of those entries, 60% (n = 550) of the participants submitted their ideas online (website application form = 425; WhatsApp = 78; Email = 47), and the remaining 40% (n = 353) submitted a paper version of the application. Most the entries were submitted by individuals residing in Lagos state (91%, n = 819). However, we shortlisted the entries based on pre-specified criteria. Of the 134 entries (15%) that were not eligible, 6 of those were duplicate entries, 113 were entries that could not be scored and 15 were entrants who were older than 24 years. In total, we found 769 eligible, non-duplicated entries submitted by 769 applicants. Among these youth, 33.6% were less than 14 years, 44.2% were between the ages of 15 to 19 years, and 22.2% were between the ages of 20 to 24 years old. Approximately half of the participants were females (51.2%) and more than half had obtained a primary education (52.6%), whereas, 47.4% of the participants had obtained a secondary education or higher (refer to Table 1).

Table 1. Key characteristics of contest entries, HIVST crowdsourcing contest participants—Nigeria, 2018 (n = 769 eligible entries).

N %
Total 769 100.0
Age (years)
 10–14 139 33.6
 15–19 183 44.2
 20–24 92 22.2
Gender
 Female 376 51.2
 Male 358 48.8
Educational attainment
 Primary 271 52.6
 Secondary 220 42.7
 Tertiary 24 4.7
Mean overall score, (SD) 4.0 (1.5)
Feasibility
 Low 526 68.4
 Moderate 205 26.7
 High 38 4.9
Desirability
 Low 486 63.2
 Moderate 228 29.6
 High 55 7.2
Impact
 Low 614 79.8
 Moderate 132 17.2
 High 23 3.0

HIVST = HIV Self-Testing, SD = standard deviation.

Some frequencies do not add up to the total due to missing observations.

Four independent judges scored the contest entries based on 3 criteria (feasibility, desirability and impact) on a 1–3 scale (3 = high, 2 = moderate or 1 = low level). Scores for the 3 criteria were summed (total up to 9 points) and the average overall score for all entries was computed.

Regarding the content of the 769 entries, the average word count of the written entries was 180 words and the average video length for entries was 2.14 minutes (range: 0.3–5.34 minutes). Fifty-four entries used a combination of text with images (refer to Fig 1), 6 entries were a combination of texts and videos, and the remaining entries were completely in text format. Thirty five percent provided an overview on HIV and risk factors among young people, while 61% addressed existing barriers to HIV self-testing. The mean overall score of all eligible entries was 4.0/9.0 (standard deviation = 1.5) with 8.2% receiving a high overall score (7–9). On individual criteria, a high score of 3 was received by about 7.2% of the entries rated on desirability, 4.9% rated on feasibility, and 3.0% rated on impact (refer to Table 1). The most relevant themes for promotion of HIVST that emerged from the open challenges are presented below and in Table 2.

Fig 1. Sample images submitted to the 4 youth by youth HIV self-testing contest.

Fig 1

Table 2. Illustrative themes categorized by the feasibility, desirability and impact of the proposed ideas by 769 young people, ranging from 10 to 24 years in Nigeria.

Judging Criteria HIV Self-testing strategy Illustrative Themes
Feasible ideas for HIVST Delivery (Can the idea be easy to implement? Are the resources available to execute the idea?) Peer-to-peer distribution and existing infrastructures “… introducing the HIV self-testing kit to them, train them on how to use, and encourage each of them to have group of ten and train them at community level for a certain period while each of those peers would also have their group to be train at the end of their passing out…” (No. O017)
“Five to ten students will be selected from each school for training including their mentors on contents that will include: Meaning of AIDS, HIV and STIs, what is HIV Testing, …Communication Skills…, abstinence and other life sustenance skills…” (No. O053)
“… Would engage youth as Peer Educators, counsellors and caregivers charged with the responsibility of client follow up, marketing and sales of test kits…” (No. O009)
“HIV self-testing can be improved among youth through collaborating with organizations responsible for community-based program as well as workshop to enable youth participate and be enlightened about the self-testing method.” (No. O108)
“Using outreach programs including community-based programs, that are already in place to connect with the young people in Nigeria…” (No. O059)
Desirable ideas for HIVST Delivery (Is the idea appealing to youth? Does the idea meet the needs (low-cost, accessible, confidential) of young people?) Youth Branding of the HIVST Kit “Would package the test kit in sky blue color nylon pack sealed; hence can be folded easily for easy carriage. Make it the size of a medium Bible; with each pack containing the test kit, a direction on how to use and read results…” (No. O251)
“Packaged in portable easy to keep 6-inch by 6-inch purple and pink thick nylon or foil containers with the picture of a confident cheerful, relaxed and good-looking young person on it…” (No. O257)
“it should be packaged in a pink or purple color pack; the size of 2 Gold circle packs of condoms, with information leaflet stating the step by step use and how to read result. It must come with human (young persons) pictures and carefully folded into each pack with background information about the test kit, basic facts about HIV & AIDS and a directory of Youth Friendly Organizations providing ART services with contact phone lines (hot lines) for confidential referral and treatment services. Information on the leaflet will come in Yoruba, Igbo, Hausa, English and Pidgin English languages” (No. O039)
“It should cost between N500 to N1000…” (No. O096)
Impactful ideas for HIVST delivery (Will the idea significantly influence young people to self-test for HIV? Is the idea able to reach young people in Nigeria when available?) Mobile platforms and social media technology “…awareness can be created using short videos on how HIV self-testing can be done and this will be sent to different social media platform including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, WhatsApp and so on. Meanwhile we can attach a reward (which could be in form of data or call unit) for those with highest videos shared or highest viewer or possibly the highest videos liked.” (No. O126)
“To start any movement, a short and effective hashtag like ‘#shaku-test’ could be used, which can be unconsciously picked up by the average Nigerian youth. It can be made more effective by using funny memes and tagging Nigerian celebs that are inclined to advocacy.” (No. O020)
“.a mobile interactive application will be created to guide the user on how to carry out the test and support the user where the result is positive” (No. O003)
“Virabust proposes a mobile health communication platform (app) for HIV and other STI Self-Test procedures with incentivized and multi-model (visual, text, auditory) channels to promote self-testing among young people in Nigeria.” (No. O009)

Peer-to-peer distribution and harnessing existing infrastructures

Peer-to-peer distribution were described as potentially feasible strategies for mobilizing HIVST delivery among young Nigerians. Participant entries suggested that supportive interactions among peers as well as discussions by young people with their peers may promote and increase awareness on proper use of the HIVST kits. Youth also provided ideas on using peer educators as role models or brand ambassadors for HIV self-testing kits. They suggested that these peer educators can also train other young people using the train-the-trainer model so that other youth could become engaged in the delivery of HIV self-testing kits to their peers. In addition, schools, religious institutions and community centers serving young people were also described by participant entries, as existing infrastructures that could be potentially harnessed to promote HIVST delivery. Participants suggested that mobilization activities should focus on these infrastructures since they already interact with large numbers of young people. Example of feasible themes are included in Table 2.

Youth-oriented branding of the HIVST kit

Overall, participant entries included several suggestions for making HIVST more appealing to young Nigerians. This included repackaging existing HIVST products with colors, taglines, designs, and animations that are youth-friendly (75%). A significant number of entries highlighted making the package smaller and more flexible in order to be discreet. Additionally, several entries suggested providing instructions translated in the three most common Nigerian languages (Igbo, Hausa and Yoruba) to enhance appeal to a diverse segment of youth in Nigeria. Notably, several participant entries described a comprehensive approach to HIVST promotion, incorporating different youth-friendly health products, including personal hygiene products such as grooming kits for men and sanitary pads for females to enhance HIVST appeal. Finally, participant entries emphasized the need for HIVST products targeting youth to be low cost with price ranging from 500–1000 naira ($1.38-$2.78) so as to be affordable to Nigerian youth. Example of desirable themes are included in Table 2.

Mobile platforms and social media technology

With the high penetration of mobile technology and social media use among young people in Nigeria, 11.3% of entries suggested the use of these technologies to promote HIVST among youth in Nigeria. Some of the entries suggested using local context-specific taglines and hashtags to increase demand for HIVST on social media. Similar to popular viral campaigns on social media, participants’ entries suggested that these locally derived taglines or hashtags are common in Nigeria and can be used as tools to create awareness and mobilize HIVST delivery to young Nigerians. Entries also suggested recruiting local celebrities to endorse these hashtags to generate demand not only among these celebrities but also among their young fans. Notably, some entries suggested that mobile and social media platforms can be used to carry out nationwide campaigns in the form of contests on how to promote HIVST, similar to the one organized by 4YBY platform. Participants suggested that contests are an impactful approach to reach and engage young people and can be used as a strategy to not only mobilize youth, but also to encourage engagement and subsequent uptake of HIVST. Example of impactful themes are included in Table 2.

Discussion

In this crowdsourcing study conducted with youth aged 10–24 in Nigeria, we elicited youth perspectives to better understand what attributes (i.e. what, when, where, or who distributes HIVST) are most desirable, feasible and potentially impactful with mobilizing the promotion and delivery of HIVST to Nigerian youth. This study expands the literature by implementing a crowdsourcing contest in an LMIC context, effectively soliciting both broad and deep engagement among youth, and engaging a large number of men.

First, we successfully crowdsourced for ideas for promoting HIVST and engaged a large audience of 769 young people. This contest generated a much higher participation rate when compared to other crowdsourcing challenges and is one of the largest crowdsourcing contest for health.[28, 37, 41] Notably, the contest engaged young men and women across Nigeria, both online and offline. More than 66% of the participants were 15 years or older, while 33.6% were younger than 15 years of age. Although few social media or online interventions are traditionally targeted at young people in low- or middle-income countries [42], this study illustrates the potential to access multiple youth age groups through an open challenge contest using existing online platforms. Given that internet bandwidth is rapidly increasing across many African regions, a crowdsourcing approach may be able to reach farther into rural and other under-served areas.

Second, we identified themes that may be useful for future public health campaigns or initiatives that seek to raise awareness and scale up HIVST uptake among young people in Nigeria. Many of the entries submitted in this contest proposed conventional approaches (for example, using outreach programs including community-based programs, that are already in place to connect with the young people in Nigeria) that are considered feasible to implement. However, few proposed unconventional but impactful and desirable ideas (for example, creating awareness using short videos on how to use a HIVST kit, which will then be shared on several social media platforms and viewers will automatically earn bonus points that can be used to gain rewards) that could potentially draw attention to HIVST and make them more noticeable to youth populations. To our knowledge, this study is the first to elicit ideas from young people about how to make HIVST more youth-friendly and our findings could be used to not only create models for HIVST distribution that are desirable to young people, but also kits that would influence uptake of HIVST, thus increasing the proportion of youth who are aware of their HIV status and facilitating appropriate health-seeking behaviors.

Third, an important finding from our contest was the meaningful engagement of young people in generating input, images, and outreach strategies that may potentially enhance demand for HIVST among young people in Nigeria. Findings generated youth ideas on potential mobilization efforts, including where these activities should focus, who should carry out these activities and what additional services or support tools may be incorporated to increase demand and uptake of HIVST among Nigerian youth. Engaging young people to identify solutions on how to promote HIV self-testing is important in developing HIVST campaigns and distribution messages that will resonate with young people. It ensures that crucial youth perspectives, cultural and linguistic appropriateness are incorporated in mobilization strategies to promote HIVST uptake among youth in Nigeria. Overall, the entries received from the open challenge contests give voice to young people’s lived experiences in Nigeria and could serve as an important step with effectively reaching and engaging young people with HIVST, particularly those who may not otherwise test using conventional strategies.

This study has several limitations. Central among them is that, although we received entries on how to promote HIVST Nigerian youth, most of the entries that did not include information on how to promote HIV self-testing were the offline entries, which indicates a need for better communication on the purpose of the contest both in-person (offline) and online. This is to ensure that all potential participants receive adequate and consistent information on the purpose and the deliverables of the contest. There may have been some selection bias in the entries received. The study sample may not have been representative of the general population of young people between the ages of 14 to 24 years. More than half of the contest entries were received online. Hence, this may have resulted in the inadvertent exclusion of individuals with limited access to internet connectivity or individuals who may have missed the open call period. To minimize the bias, we provided individuals with the option to submit their entries using the paper-based version of the online form, which they were able to submit in a drop-box at a secured location. Since the purpose of this study was to test whether we could use open challenges to generate ideas on how to promote HIV self-testing, future studies may use these findings to design and evaluate youth-friendly campaigns that may increase uptake of HIVST among young Nigerians. Nonetheless, the revised Nigerian National HIV and AIDS strategic framework (2019–2021) [19] calls for scaling up HIV self-testing kits to reach underserved populations with high unmet need for HIV testing. The 4YBY HIV Self-testing crowdsourcing contest facilitated meaningful youth engagement on images, designs, and relevant themes to reach underserved youth populations who have low HIV testing coverage and remain at ongoing HIV risk. Tapping into the rich wisdom of crowds may lay the groundwork for illuminating youth perspectives on HIVST that could potentially increase HIV testing among Nigerian youth.

Conclusion

Crowdsourcing requires the active participation of key stakeholders[43, 44], in this case the active participation of youth in creating solutions to increase the uptake of HIV testing among their peers. This strengthens their ability to take ownership of their own health while meeting their unique needs and is central to the sustainability of any health intervention [45]. Building on this opportunity, this form of grassroots activism led by youth themselves can be a cornerstone for achieving an AIDS free generation.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the ITEST team, ID Africa, SESH, PinPont Media, 4 Youth by Youth, Youth Ambassadors and other groups that helped to organize the challenge. We would like to thank the program officers and members of the Prevention and Treatment through a Comprehensive Care Continuum for HIV-affected Adolescents in Resource Constrained Settings (PATC3H) Consortium.

Data Availability

ll relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Grant number: 1UG3HD096929 and NIAID K24AI143471

References

  • 1.Bekker L-G, Hosek S. HIV and adolescents: focus on young key populations. Journal of the International AIDS Society. 2015;18(2(Suppl 1)):20076. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.NDHS. National Population Commision; Nigerian Demographic and Health Survey Reports. 2013.
  • 3.Asaolu IO, Gunn JK, Center KE, Koss MP, Iwelunmor JI, Ehiri JE. Predictors of HIV Testing among Youth in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Cross-Sectional Study. PloS one. 2016;11(10):e0164052. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sam-Agudu NA, Folayan MO, Ezeanolue EE. Seeking wider access to HIV testing for adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa. Pediatric research. 2016;79(6):838. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Babalola S. Readiness for HIV testing among young people in northern Nigeria: the roles of social norm and perceived stigma. AIDS and Behavior. 2007;11(5):759–69. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.AIDS NAftCo. Federal Republic of Nigeria, Global AIDS Report: Country Progress Report 2015 http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/country/documents/NGA_narrative_report_2015.pdf.
  • 7.van Rooyen H, Tulloch O, Mukoma W, Makusha T, Chepuka L, Knight LC, et al. What are the constraints and opportunities for HIVST scale-up in Africa? Evidence from Kenya, Malawi and South Africa. J Int AIDS Soc. 2015;18(1):19445. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Napierala Mavedzenge S, Baggaley R, Corbett EL. A review of self-testing for HIV: research and policy priorities in a new era of HIV prevention. Clinical infectious diseases. 2013;57(1):126–38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Organization WH. Guidelines on HIV self-testing and partner notification: supplement to consolidated guidelines on HIV testing services: World Health Organization; 2016. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Negin J, Wariero J, Mutuo P, Jan S, Pronyk P. Feasibility, acceptability and cost of home‐based HIV testing in rural Kenya. Tropical medicine & international health. 2009;14(8):849–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Obare F, Fleming P, Anglewicz P, Thornton R, Martinson F, Kapatuka A, et al. Acceptance of repeat population-based voluntary counselling and testing for HIV in rural Malawi. Sexually transmitted infections. 2009;85(2):139–44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Spielberg F, Levine RO, Weaver M. Self-testing for HIV: a new option for HIV prevention? The Lancet infectious diseases. 2004;4(10):640–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tucker JD, Wei C, Pendse R, Lo Y-R. HIV self-testing among key populations: an implementation science approach to evaluating self-testing. Journal of virus eradication. 2015;1(1):38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Indravudh PP, Sibanda EL, d’Elbée M, Kumwenda MK, Ringwald B, Maringwa G, et al. ‘I will choose when to test, where I want to test’: investigating young people's preferences for HIV self-testing in Malawi and Zimbabwe. AIDS (London, England). 2017;31(Suppl 3):S203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Smith P, Wallace M, Bekker LG. Adolescents’ experience of a rapid HIV self‐testing device in youth‐friendly clinic settings in Cape Town South Africa: a cross‐sectional community based usability study. Journal of the International AIDS Society. 2016;19(1):21111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Jennings L, Conserve DF, Merrill J, Kajula L, Iwelunmor J, Linnemayr S, et al. Perceived Cost Advantages and Disadvantages of Purchasing HIV Self-Testing Kits among Urban Tanzanian Men: An Inductive Content Analysis. Journal of AIDS & clinical research. 2017;8(8). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Indravudh P, Kumwenda M, Neuman M, Chisunkha B, Hatzold K, Nkhoma C, et al., editors. Providing user support for HIV self-testing beyond instructions-for-use in Malawi. Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI 2017) Seattle, Washington; 2017.
  • 18.Hatzold K, Gudukeya S, Mutseta MN, Chilongosi R, Nalubamba M, Nkhoma C, et al. HIV self‐testing: breaking the barriers to uptake of testing among men and adolescents in sub‐Saharan Africa, experiences from STAR demonstration projects in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Journal of the International AIDS Society. 2019;22:e25244. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.NACA. Revised National HIV and AIDS Strategic Framework 2019–2021:National Agency for the Control of AIDS: National Agency for the Control of AIDS; 2019 [
  • 20.Ritchwood TD, Selin A, Pettifor A, Lippman SA, Gilmore H, Kimaru L, et al. HIV self-testing: South African young adults’ recommendations for ease of use, test kit contents, accessibility, and supportive resources. BMC public health. 2019;19(1):123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Strauss M, George GL, Rhodes BD. Determining preferences related to HIV counselling and testing services among high school learners in KwaZulu-Natal: A discrete choice experiment. AIDS and Behavior. 2018;22(1):64–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mokgatle MM, Madiba S. High Acceptability of HIV Self-Testing among Technical Vocational Education and Training College Students in Gauteng and North West Province: What Are the Implications for the Scale Up in South Africa? PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0169765. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Brown W 3rd, Carballo-Dieguez A, John RM, Schnall R. Information, Motivation, and Behavioral Skills of High-Risk Young Adults to Use the HIV Self-Test. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(9):2000–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ritchwood TD, Selin A, Pettifor A, Lippman SA, Gilmore H, Kimaru L, et al. HIV self-testing: South African young adults' recommendations for ease of use, test kit contents, accessibility, and supportive resources. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Baggaley R, Armstrong A, Dodd Z, Ngoksin E, Krug A. Young key populations and HIV: a special emphasis and consideration in the new WHO Consolidated Guidelines on HIV Prevention, Diagnosis, Treatment and Care for Key Populations. J Int AIDS Soc. 2015;18(2 Suppl 1):19438. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.UNAIDS. Youth and HIV—Mainstreaming a three-lens approach to youth participation. Geneva: Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS); 2018.
  • 27.Tang W, Han L, Best J, Zhang Y, Mollan K, Kim J, et al. Crowdsourcing HIV test promotion videos: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial in China. Clinical infectious diseases. 2016;62(11):1436–42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ranard BL, Ha YP, Meisel ZF, Asch DA, Hill SS, Becker LB, et al. Crowdsourcing—harnessing the masses to advance health and medicine, a systematic review. Journal of general internal medicine. 2014;29(1):187–203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Musa E. Crowdsourcing Social Innovation. Social Entrepreneurship: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. 2019:83. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Tucker JD, Tang W, Li H, Liu C, Fu R, Tang S, et al. Crowdsourcing designathon: a new model for multisectoral collaboration. BMJ Innovations. 2018;4(2):46–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Brabham DC, Ribisl KM, Kirchner TR, Bernhardt JM. Crowdsourcing applications for public health. American journal of preventive medicine. 2014;46(2):179–87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Peters D, Davis S, Calvo RA, Sawyer SM, Smith L, Foster JM. Young people’s preferences for an asthma self-management app highlight psychological needs: a participatory study. Journal of medical Internet research. 2017;19(4):e113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Turner AM, Kirchhoff K, Capurro D. Using crowdsourcing technology for testing multilingual public health promotion materials. Journal of medical Internet research. 2012;14(3):e79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kristan J, Suffoletto B. Using online crowdsourcing to understand young adult attitudes toward expert-authored messages aimed at reducing hazardous alcohol consumption and to collect peer-authored messages. Translational behavioral medicine. 2014;5(1):45–52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Zhang TP, Liu C, Han L, Tang W, Mao J, Wong T, et al. Community engagement in sexual health and uptake of HIV testing and syphilis testing among MSM in China: a cross‐sectional online survey. Journal of the International AIDS Society. 2017;20(1):21372. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.WHO/TDR. Crowdsourcing in Health and Health Research: A Practical Guide. Geneva: World Health Organization 2018. Report No.: TDR/STRA/18.4.
  • 38.Carlgren L, Rauth I, Elmquist M. Framing Design Thinking: The Concept in Idea and Enactment. Creativity and Innovation Management. 2016;25(1):38–57. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Guest G, MacQueen K, Namey E. Applied Thematic Analysis: SAGE; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Hilton LG, Azzam T. Crowdsourcing Qualitative Thematic Analysis. American Journal of Evaluation. 2019;40(4):575–89. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Wazny K. Applications of crowdsourcing in health: an overview. J Glob Health. 2018;8(1):010502. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Livingstone S, Nandi A, Banaji S, Stoilova M. Young adolescents and digital media: uses, risks and opportunities in low- and middle-income countries: a rapid evidence review. London, UK; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Mathews A, Farley S, Hightow-Weidman L, Muessig K, Rennie S, Tucker JD. Crowdsourcing and community engagement: a qualitative analysis of the 2BeatHIV contest. J Virus Erad. 2018;4(1):30–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Seltzer E, Mahmoudi D. Citizen Participation, Open Innovation, and Crowdsourcing: Challenges and Opportunities for Planning. Journal of Planning Literature. 2013;28(1):3–18. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Iwelunmor J, Blackstone S, Veira D, Nwaozuru U, Airhihenbuwa C, Munodawafa D, et al. Toward the sustainability of health interventions implemented in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and conceptual framework. Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Joseph KB Matovu

10 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-29605

The 4 Youth by Youth HIV Self-Testing Crowdsourcing Contest: A Qualitative Analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Iwelunmor,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 24 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Joseph K.B. Matovu, PhD.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Since this is a qualitative paper, the authors should ensure that their manuscript addresses the following aspects: 1) defined objectives or research questions; 2) description of the sampling strategy, including rationale for the recruitment method, participant inclusion/exclusion criteria and the number of participants recruited; 3) detailed reporting of the data collection procedures; 4) data analysis procedures described in sufficient detail to enable replication; 5) a discussion of potential sources of bias; and 6) a discussion of limitations.

The authors should also ensure that the paper is formatted according to the COREQ checklist.

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contains copyrighted images.

All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission:

a.         You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

5. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: An interesting and useful article addressing a significant and serious public and personal health issue across the African continent.

The manuscript would be improved by adoption of the following recommendations:

• Recommend inclusion of a definition of ‘Crowd Sourcing” within the abstract – a simple statement explaining that it is a technique to elicit responses from a large group of people.

Methods

The methods section requires significant clarification, specifically in respect to quantitative aspects versus qualitative aspects of the study which appears to be a mixed methods study. Each aspect of methods should be clearly defined in a logical sequence within the script.

Qualitative methods:

• The study included more than 700 participants which would mean a very largescale task in thematic analysis of transcripts and participants quotes. How was this undertaken, who completed the task, what training did they have etc.

• It is recommended that the authors access the COREQ checklist for reporting qualitative research and ensure that the 32 step process is followed in the construction of the manuscript https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/coreq/

• There are some significant omissions in the current script. For example, the participant quotes in Table one have not been allocated a code as per the acceptable standards for qualitative reporting.

• The manuscript should be revised and returned with a completed checklist

Quantitative Methods:

The manuscript refers to both survey processes and statistical reporting for example (Line 240 -243) but lacks detailed description of how these methods were designed, implemented or calculated. Significant work needs to be undertaken to detail all aspects of the study methodology. Authors are encouraged to use guidelines within the equator network for development of mixed methods studies inclusive of the use of on-line survey techniques.

The revised manuscript should be returned with the appropriate checklists as confirmation of research rigor and reporting.

Ethics

Additional details of the St Louis and Nigerian Institute of Medical Research ethics clearance should be included within the body of the manuscript, specifically, clearance date and numbers.

Discussion

Requires much greater depth including:

• Implementation policy and considerations

• Feasibility of scaling up recommendations – how do-able and affordable are the recommendations within the themes, for example, how strong are the Telco networks across areas of high HIV prevalence

• Who are the likely implementation partners

• What is the recommended role of government

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well written The Title answers What, Who Where and When and clearly highlight what is expected in the body. Method section well written and results supports the findings. The findings also supports the conclusion.

An excellent job done in the manuscript

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: CAROLINE OCHOLA DANDE; MSC EPIDEMIOLOGY AND BIOSTATISTICS; KEMRI-FACES

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-29605_reviewer.pdf

PLoS One. 2020 May 29;15(5):e0233698. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233698.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


5 Feb 2020

Dear Dr. Matovu,

We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on the attached manuscript. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers. Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns (please note that responses to the comments are in BOLD and line numbers are in reference to the clean copy of the manuscript attached):

Additional Editor Comments:

Since this is a qualitative paper, the authors should ensure that their manuscript addresses the following aspects:

1) defined objectives or research questions;

We appreciate the helpful feedback. With regards to the research question and study objectives, this has been revised accordingly to clearly state the research question and in this case, the goal of the crowdsourcing contest. Specifically, we stated the following in Page 6, lines 130 – 131:

“The purpose of this study is to examine youth responses to an HIVST crowdsourcing contest in Nigeria to promote the uptake of HIVST among young people.”

2) Description of the sampling strategy, including rationale for the recruitment method, participant inclusion/exclusion criteria and the number of participants recruited;

Guided by COREQ, we revised the methods section accordingly to include the sampling technique, recruitment strategy, inclusion criteria and number of entrants. Refer to page 8, lines 159 – 176; number of entrants, refer to pg. 11, lines 232 to 240.

“We invited all young people between the ages of 10 to 24 years in Nigeria to participate in the HIVST-themed crowdsourcing contest. We utilized purposive sampling techniques to ensure that a range of young people from diverse backgrounds were engaged.”

“A total of 903 entries were submitted by young Nigerians between the ages of 10 to 24 years in response to the open challenge contest call.”

3) detailed reporting of the data collection procedures;

We have clarified the methods section and included a sub-section on “Contest Platform and Data collection”, Pgs. 8 to 9, lines 178 – 190.

“The initial selection criteria were that participants had to be between the ages of 10 to 24 years, and residing in Nigeria, and their ideas had to describe novel strategies to promote uptake of HIVST among Nigerian youth in English. Participants submitted demographic details upon submission, including, contact information, age, current location, sex, occupation, level of education and marital status. Submission of entries could be in form of written descriptions (150 words or less), images, drawings, posters, videos, taglines, describing how to promote HIVST among young people in Nigeria.”

4) data analysis procedures described in sufficient detail to enable replication;

We have revised the data analysis section based on your suggestions. Specifically, in Pgs. 10 to 11, lines 213 – 228, we provide detailed description on the data analysis and coding for this study.

“After the contest was completed, each participant entry was deidentified and transcribed to allow for a thematic analysis of data. Transcripts were coded by research staff trained in qualitative analysis methods and entered in Microsoft Excel 2016. Descriptive statistics were used to describe participant demographics and characteristics of the submissions in SAS version 9.4.”

5) a discussion of potential sources of bias; and

Thank you for pointing this out. We have included potential sources of bias in the limitation paragraph. Pgs. 19 to 20, lines 362 – 386. For example, we stated the following:

“There may have been some selection bias in the entries received. The study sample may not have been representative of the general population of young people between the ages of 14 to 24 years”

6) a discussion of limitations

The study limitations are included in the discussion section. Pgs. 19 to 20, lines 362 – 386.

“There may have been some selection bias in the entries received. The study sample may not have been representative of the general population of young people between the ages of 14 to 24 years. More than half of the contest entries were received online. Hence, this may have resulted in the inadvertent exclusion of individuals with limited access to internet connectivity or individuals who may have missed the open call period. To minimize the bias, we provided individuals with the option to submit their entries using the paper-based version of the online form, which they were able to submit in a drop-box at a secured location”

7) The authors should also ensure that the paper is formatted according to the COREQ checklist

We appreciate the helpful comments and utilized the COREQ to revise the manuscript.

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

We have incorporated the PLOS formatting style throughout the manuscript.

2. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contains copyrighted images.

All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The appropriate permission has been obtained for the images.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

The ORCID ID for the corresponding author has been included.

4. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

We have included the caption as suggested.

5. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

We agree with this and have incorporated your suggestion in the methods section.

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: An interesting and useful article addressing a significant and serious public and personal health issue across the African continent.

The manuscript would be improved by adoption of the following recommendations:

• Recommend inclusion of a definition of ‘Crowd Sourcing” within the abstract – a simple statement explaining that it is a technique to elicit responses from a large group of people.

Thank you for the recommendation. The definition of crowdsourcing was included in the abstract. Pg. 2, line 46 – 47. Specifically, we stated the following:

Crowdsourcing, a participatory approach to solicit ideas from a large group of diverse individuals, provides an opportunity to nurture youth participation in HIV self-testing service design.

Methods

The methods section requires significant clarification, specifically in respect to quantitative aspects versus qualitative aspects of the study which appears to be a mixed methods study. Each aspect of methods should be clearly defined in a logical sequence within the script.

Thank you very much. We utilized the COREQ checklist to revise the manuscript.

Qualitative methods:

• The study included more than 700 participants which would mean a very largescale task in thematic analysis of transcripts and participants quotes. How was this undertaken, who completed the task, what training did they have etc.

Thank you for pointing this out. Please note that data analysis occurred over a six-month period with 4 trained qualitative researchers who reviewed each transcript. Also, since these are entries to a crowd-sourcing context and not typical qualitative transcripts, the recommended word limit for each entry received was 150 words, in accordance to the practical guide for crowdsourcing in health and health research (see here: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/273039/TDR-STRA-18.4-eng.pdf). As such, the analysis was easy to manage among the 4 trained qualitative researchers, who have either masters in public health or doctoral degree in public health. All the researchers that carried out the data analysis are trained in qualitative analysis methods and have published qualitative research in peer reviewed journals.

• It is recommended that the authors access the COREQ checklist for reporting qualitative research and ensure that the 32 step process is followed in the construction of the manuscript https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/coreq/

Thank you very much. We utilized the COREQ checklist to revise the manuscript.

• There are some significant omissions in the current script. For example, the participant quotes in Table one have not been allocated a code as per the acceptable standards for qualitative reporting.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have included the ID number for each quote in Table 1. Pgs. 12-14, lines 259 to 262.

“HIV self-testing can be improved among youth through collaborating with organizations responsible for community-based program as well as workshop to enable youth participate and be enlightened about the self-testing method.” (No. O108)”

• The manuscript should be revised and returned with a completed checklist

Thank you very much. We utilized the COREQ checklist to revise the manuscript.

Quantitative Methods:

The manuscript refers to both survey processes and statistical reporting for example (Line 240 -243) but lacks detailed description of how these methods were designed, implemented or calculated. Significant work needs to be undertaken to detail all aspects of the study methodology. Authors are encouraged to use guidelines within the equator network for development of mixed methods studies inclusive of the use of on-line survey techniques.

The revised manuscript should be returned with the appropriate checklists as confirmation of research rigor and reporting.

We revised the data analysis section to include “Descriptive statistics were used to describe participant demographics and characteristics of the submissions in SAS version 9.4” on Pg 10, lines 217 to 218. In addition, we included how the quantitative data were collected and what variables were included in the section on “contest platform and data collection” on page 8 to 9, lines 181 to 190.

Ethics

Additional details of the St Louis and Nigerian Institute of Medical Research ethics clearance should be included within the body of the manuscript, specifically, clearance date and numbers.

We included your suggestion on pg. 7, lines 149 to 150.

Discussion

Requires much greater depth including:

• Implementation policy and considerations

Thank you for the suggestion. The in-country policy highlighting HIVST implementation was cited in the manuscript, Pg. 19, lines 378 to 379. Specifically, we stated the following:

“… revised Nigerian National HIV and AIDS strategic framework (2019-2021) [19] calls for scaling up HIV self-testing kits to reach underserved populations with high unmet need for HIV testing.”

• Feasibility of scaling up recommendations – how do-able and affordable are the recommendations within the themes, for example, how strong are the Telco networks across areas of high HIV prevalence

• Who are the likely implementation partners

• What is the recommended role of government

Thank you for this suggestion. It would have been interesting to explore this aspect. However, in the case of our study, it seems out of scope because the study aim was to examine the responses from young Nigerians to an HIVST crowdsourcing contest and to test whether we could use open challenges to generate ideas on how to promote HIV self-testing.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well written The Title answers What, Who Where and When and clearly highlight what is expected in the body. Method section well written and results supports the findings. The findings also supports the conclusion.

An excellent job done in the manuscript

We appreciate the encouraging comments.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS responses_01_23.docx

Decision Letter 1

Joseph KB Matovu

30 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-29605R1

The 4 Youth by Youth HIV Self-Testing Crowdsourcing Contest: A Qualitative Evaluation

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Juliet Iwelunmor

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by April 29, 2020. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Joseph K.B. Matovu, PhD.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

I agree that the authors should address the methodological issues identified by one of the reviewers (details below).

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors have addressed a number of recommendations made in the initial review and the manuscript is much improved, however, some issues remain unresolved.

This study is clearly a mixed method study involving both on-line survey and analysis of qualitative comments within the survey.

Authors were urged to access the Equator Network and submit completed checklists for both qualitative research and on-line surveys. This has not been completed. While there is now evidence of application of several criteria from the COREQ checklist, a number of items remain missing and information is missing in relation to guidelines for reporting findings from on-line surveys. Please do check every item on these checklists.

Information about participants has been expanded but the manuscript lacks of table which would more readily display participant demographics.

Quantitative analysis should be undertaken across the 769 eligible responses. A small number of qualitative comments a recorded against each theme but there is insufficient indication of how many of the 769 participant supported each theme.

Information has now been included about ethics clearance but the manuscript lacks the clearance date and number via each of the committees.

As highlighted this study is clearly a mixed method study involving both on-line survey and analysis of qualitative comments within the survey. Reporting cannot include small scale qualitative analysis alone. Quantitative analysis of the survey responses is needed with the qualitative data then illustrating the themes identified.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well written and with all the previous concerns addressed. the introduction/ background, method, results and conclusion are well written and meets the requirements

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Caroline Ochola Dande, Kemri-Faces Program, Kisumu Kenya; cdande@kemri-ucsf.org

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 May 29;15(5):e0233698. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233698.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


15 Apr 2020

Dear Dr. Matovu,

We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on the attached manuscript. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers. Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns (please note that responses to the comments are in BOLD):

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Authors have addressed a number of recommendations made in the initial review and the manuscript is much improved, however, some issues remain unresolved. This study is clearly a mixed method study involving both on-line survey and analysis of qualitative comments within the survey. Authors were urged to access the Equator Network and submit completed checklists for both qualitative research and on-line surveys. This has not been completed. While there is now evidence of application of several criteria from the COREQ checklist, a number of items remain missing and information is missing in relation to guidelines for reporting findings from on-line surveys. Please do check every item on these checklists.

In summary, participants were asked to submit a creative contribution, for example, short descriptions or images that reflected a thoughtful response to the prompt, ‘How will you promote HIV self-testing among young people in Nigeria?’ Participants also completed a demographic section on the submission form (which was available both online and offline/paper-based version). The purpose of this paper was to describe the methodology and key findings from the range of submissions. Similar to Merchant et al. 2014 analysis of crowdsourcing contest entries, themes were identified from the contest submissions and summary statistics were used to describe demographic data. Although we agree that the crowdsourcing contest employs a mixed-methods approach, a thorough discussion on findings from the quantitative analysis is beyond the scope of this paper. We believe that we utilized the appropriate checklist to revise the manuscript.

Merchant RM, Griffis HM, Ha YP, et al. Hidden in plain sight: a crowdsourced public art contest to make automated external defibrillators more visible. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(12):2306–2312. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302211

Information about participants has been expanded but the manuscript lacks of table which would more readily display participant demographics. Quantitative analysis should be undertaken across the 769 eligible responses.

Thank you for the suggestion. We agree that the manuscript would benefit from reporting on the descriptive statistics of key characteristics of the contest entries. As a result, we included a table (refer to table 1) to describe participant demographics and key characteristics of the contest entries.

A small number of qualitative comments a recorded against each theme but there is insufficient indication of how many of the 769 participant supported each theme. Information has now been included about ethics clearance but the manuscript lacks the clearance date and number via each of the committees.

We identified salient themes throughout the contest submissions and the themes were further characterized by sample representative quotes (refer to table 2).

As highlighted this study is clearly a mixed method study involving both on-line survey and analysis of qualitative comments within the survey. Reporting cannot include small scale qualitative analysis alone. Quantitative analysis of the survey responses is needed with the qualitative data then illustrating the themes identified.

Thank you for this suggestion. A thorough discussion on findings from the quantitative analysis is beyond the scope of this paper, as the primary focus is to examine the responses to crowdsourcing contest prompt “how will you promote HIV self-testing among young people in Nigeria” and describe key findings from the range of submissions. Reporting on the findings from the quantitative analysis of the responses from the crowdsourcing contest are underway elsewhere. However, we agree that the manuscript would benefit from reporting on the descriptive statistics of key characteristics of the contest entries, as illustrated in table 1.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well written and with all the previous concerns addressed. the introduction/ background, method, results and conclusion are well written and meets the requirements 7.

We appreciate the encouraging comments.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS responses_04_07.docx

Decision Letter 2

Joseph KB Matovu

12 May 2020

The 4 Youth by Youth HIV Self-Testing Crowdsourcing Contest: A Qualitative Evaluation

PONE-D-19-29605R2

Dear Dr. Iwelunmor:

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Joseph K.B. Matovu, PhD.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors should check the references to ensure that they are well aligned to the journal style. In general, please ensure that all journal names have been presented in standard abbreviated formats, and endeavor to provide weblinks and access dates where documents were obtained from online sources.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript has been through two previous review cycles and is now much improved. However, more could have been made of the qualitative data and for future publications authors should undertake education to gain more competence in qualitative reporting.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Acceptance letter

Joseph KB Matovu

14 May 2020

PONE-D-19-29605R2

The 4 Youth by Youth HIV Self-Testing Crowdsourcing Contest: A Qualitative Evaluation

Dear Dr. Iwelunmor:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Joseph K.B. Matovu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-29605_reviewer.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS responses_01_23.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS responses_04_07.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    ll relevant data are within the manuscript.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES