Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20942917›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2010

How do people respond to self-test results? A cross-sectional survey.

Martine H P Ickenroth, Gaby Ronda, Janaica E J Grispen, Geert-Jan Dinant, Nanne K de Vries, Trudy van der Weijden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Towards a decision aid for self-tests: Users' experiences in The Netherlands.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Home self-testing kits: helpful or harmful?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Quality and use of consumer information provided with home test kits: room for improvement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2014
    Article
  13. Motivation and experiences of self-testers regarding tests for cardiovascular risk factors.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2014
    Article
  14. Review
  15. A review of self-testing for HIV: research and policy priorities in a new era of HIV prevention.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2013
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Martine H P IckenrothDepartment of General Practice, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, CAPHRI, School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands. martine.ickenroth@hag.unimaas.nl
Gaby Ronda
Janaica E J Grispen
Geert-Jan Dinant
Nanne K de Vries
Trudy van der Weijden

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelf-tests, tests on medical conditions that can be performed by consumers without consulting a doctor first, are frequently used. Nevertheless, there are concerns about the safety of self-testing, as it may delay diagnosis and appropriate treatment in the case of inappropriate use of the test, or false-negative results. It is unclear whether self-tests stimulate appropriate follow-up behaviour. Our aim was to examine the frequency of self-test use, consumers' response to self-test results in terms of their confidence in the result, reassurance by the test result, and follow-up behaviour.

methodsA two step cross-sectional survey was designed. A random sample of 6700 Internet users in an existing Internet panel received an online questionnaire on the use of self-tests. Self-tests were defined as tests on body materials, initiated by consumers with the aim to diagnose a disease or risk factor. A second questionnaire on consumers' response to self-test results was sent to the respondents that were identified as a self-tester in the first questionnaire (n = 703).

results18.1% (799/4416) of the respondents had ever performed a self-test, the most frequently used tests being those for diabetes (5.3%), kidney disease (4.9%), cholesterol (4.5%), urinary tract infection (1.9%) and HIV/AIDS and Chlamydia (both 1.6%). A total of 78.1% of the testers with a normal test result and 81.4% of those with an abnormal result reported confidence in this result. Almost all (95.6%) of the testers with a normal result felt reassured. After a normal result, 78.1% did not take any further action and 5.8% consulted a doctor. The corresponding figures after an abnormal test result were 9.3% and 72.2%, respectively.

conclusionsRespondents who had performed a self-test seemed to base their follow-up behaviour on the result of the test. They had confidence in the test result, and were often reassured by a normal result. After an abnormal result, most self-testers sought medical care. Because consumers seem to trust the self-test results, further research should focus on the development of consumer information addressing indications for performing a self-test, the validity of self-tests and appropriate interpretation of and management after a test.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthDiagnostic Self EvaluationAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth BehaviorHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID20942917
PMCPMC2964597

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.