ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2016
Perceptions of Self-Testing for Chlamydia: Understanding and Predicting Self-Test Use.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acceptability of self-sampling and self-testing for infections: a rapid systematic review on public users' views.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelf-testing technology allows people to test themselves for chlamydia without professional support. This may result in reassurance and wider access to chlamydia testing, but anxiety could occur on receipt of positive results. This study aimed to identify factors important in understanding self-testing for chlamydia outside formal screening contexts, to explore the potential impacts of self-testing on individuals, and to identify theoretical constructs to form a Framework for future research and intervention development.
methodsEighteen university students participated in semi-structured interviews; eleven had self-tested for chlamydia. Data were analysed thematically usingaFrameworkapproach.
resultsPerceivedbenefitsofself-testingincludeditsbeingconvenient, anonymousandnotrequiringphysicalexamination. Therewasconcernabouttestaccuracyandsome participants lacked confidence in using vulvo-vaginal swabs. While some participants expressed concern about the absence of professional support, all said they would seek help on receiving a positive result. Factors identified in Protection Motivation Theory and the Theory of Planned Behaviour, such as response efficacy and self-efficacy, were found to be highly salient to participants in thinking about self-testing.
conclusionsThese exploratory findings suggest that self-testing independentlyofformalhealthcaresystemsmaynomorenegativelyimpactpeoplethanbeingtested by health care professionals. Participants' perceptions about self-testing behaviour were consistent with psychological theories. Findings suggest that interventions which increase confidence in using self-tests and that provide reassurance of test accuracy may increase self-test intentions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.