Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22809246›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2014

Quality and use of consumer information provided with home test kits: room for improvement.

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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
  3. Home self-testing kits: helpful or harmful?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

5 authors.

Janaica E J GrispenDepartment of General Practice, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Martine H P Ickenroth
Nanne K de Vries
Trudy van der Weijden
Gaby Ronda

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiagnostic self-tests (tests on body materials that are initiated by consumers with the aim of diagnosing a disorder or risk factor) are becoming increasingly available. Although the pros and cons of self-testing are currently not clear, it is an existing phenomenon that is likely to gain further popularity.

objectiveTo examine consumers' use of and needs for information about self-testing, and to assess the quality of consumer information provided with home test kits, as perceived by consumers and as assessed using a checklist of quality criteria.

methodsA cross-sectional Internet survey among 305 self-testers assessed their use of and needs for information and their perception of the quality of consumer information provided with self-test kits. A meta-search engine was used to identify Dutch and English consumer information for home diagnostic tests available online at the time of the study. The quality of this consumer information was evaluated using a checklist of quality criteria.

resultsThe consumers' information needs were in line with the most frequently used information, and the information was perceived as being of moderate to good quality. The information was mostly in agreement with clinical practice guidelines, although information on reliability and follow-up behaviour was limited. Approximately half of the instruction leaflets did not include information on the target group of the test.

conclusionsAlthough generally of moderate to good quality, some aspects of the information provided were in many cases insufficient. European legislation concerning self-tests and accompanying information needs to be adapted and adhered to more closely.

Indexed as

AdultCross-Sectional StudiesEducational StatusFemaleHealth LiteracyHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansMaleNetherlandsPatient Education as TopicReagent Kits, DiagnosticSelf CareReagent Kits, Diagnosticconsumer informationquality assessmentself-testself-testing

Identifiers

PMID22809246
PMCPMC5060911

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.