Module 4: Desk review of national HIV testing services data and reporting, and data triangulation

Desk review of national HTS data and reporting

A desk review of national HTS data is an important component of data quality assessment and routine monitoring, providing a system-level view of data completeness, timeliness, and consistency. A desk review can be carried out as a discrete exercise to assess aggregate HTS reporting data before or in parallel to a data quality assessment recounting and verifying HTS indicators at the facility level to enable a comprehensive assessment of data quality at different levels of reporting and data collection. Alternatively, it can also be conducted continuously (e.g. monthly or quarterly) for data quality assurance as part of the routine cycle of collection, reporting, feedback and use of data.

The desk review is intended to assess errors in reporting and aggregation caused by missing or delayed reports and, when feasible, duplicate reports (if unique identifiers are used for HTS). Findings from the desk review enables identification of gaps and delays in data reporting, and recommendations to enhance the quality and reliability of HTS data. The indicators to measure timeliness and completeness of HTS indicators at a facility and district level are summarised in table 1.

Table 1: Indicators to assess timeliness and completeness of HTS indicators

Triangulation of HTS data with test kit procurement data

Triangulating HTS data with HIV test kit procurement and supply data is a valuable approach for strengthening the completeness and consistency of national HTS reporting. Test kit procurement is typically informed by epidemiological data, testing targets, and programme forecasts aligned with national and global goals, including the first 95 target (95% of all people living with HIV know their status). As a result, procurement data provide an important benchmark for programme managers and partners to assess whether reported testing volumes are plausible and consistent with available resources. Comparing procurement, stock, and reported HTS data at facility and national levels can help identify potential data quality issues early, such as under‑reporting or over‑reporting of testing activity, before data are aggregated and used for national planning and monitoring.

Integrating test kit procurement data into electronic health information and logistics systems further strengthens HTS data quality and commodity management. Such integration enables real‑time or routine triangulation of testing services data with test kit availability, supporting more accurate monitoring of testing volumes and stock levels. For example, integrated systems can generate automated reports that combine service delivery, stock transactions, and warehouse data, helping to improve both data reliability and supply chain efficiency. When well designed, these systems reduce manual data handling, improve timeliness, and support evidence‑based decision‑making for HTS programming and procurement planning.

While procurement data are a useful validation tool, they should not replace reported HTS data. Differences between procurement figures and reported testing volumes can occur for legitimate reasons, including testing conducted in the private sector that is not captured in national reporting systems, stock carryover between reporting periods, losses and wastage of test kits, and weaknesses in stock tracking or data entry.

To maximise the value of procurement data for HTS data quality assessments, countries are encouraged to:

• strengthen integration between procurement and health information systems;
• improve reporting from private sector providers;
• enhance stock monitoring and tracking of usage and wastage; and
• align procurement cycles with reporting periods, and conduct routine data quality audits.

Together, these strategies support more accurate interpretation of triangulation findings and contribute to stronger, more reliable HTS data at all levels for programme planning, monitoring, and improvement.