Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28320690›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2017

Use of GetCheckedOnline, a Comprehensive Web-based Testing Service for Sexually Transmitted and Blood-Borne Infections.

Mark Gilbert, Travis Salway, Devon Haag, Christopher K Fairley, Jason Wong, Troy Grennan, Zhaida Uddin, Christopher S Buchner, Tom Wong, Mel Krajden and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

13 authors.

Mark GilbertBC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5978-6843
Travis SalwayBC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5699-5444
Devon HaagBC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4955-1017
Christopher K FairleyMelbourne Sexual Health Centre, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9081-1664
Jason WongBC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7681-7573
Troy GrennanBC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8039-6513
Zhaida UddinOttawa Public Health, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8495-2399
Christopher S BuchnerFraser Health, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6775-2432
Tom WongHealth Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4678-1055
Mel KrajdenBC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3477-8748
Mark TyndallBC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4450-5679
Jean ShovellerSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4616-3556
Gina OgilvieBC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5783-4493

Funding

CIHR PHE-114129CIHR PHE-318068
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe British Columbia Centre for Disease Control implemented a comprehensive Web-based testing service GetCheckedOnline (GCO) in September 2014 in Vancouver, Canada. GCO's objectives are to increase testing for sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections (STBBIs), reach high-prevalence populations facing testing barriers, and increase clinical STI service capacity. GCO was promoted through email invitations to provincial STI clinic clients, access codes to clients unable to access immediate clinic-based testing (deferred testers), and a campaign to gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM).

objectiveThe objective of the study was to report on characteristics of GCO users, use and test outcomes (overall and by promotional strategy) during this pilot phase.

methodsWe used GCO program data, website metrics, and provincial STI clinic records to describe temporal trends, progression through the service pathway, and demographic, risk, and testing outcomes for individuals creating GCO accounts during the first 15 months of implementation.

resultsOf 868 clients creating accounts, 318 (36.6%) submitted specimens, of whom 96 (30.2%) tested more than once and 10 (3.1%) had a positive STI diagnosis. The proportion of clients submitting specimens increased steadily over the course of the pilot phase following introduction of deferred tester codes. Clients were diverse with respect to age, gender, and ethnicity, although youth and individuals of nonwhite ethnicity were underrepresented. Of the 506 clients completing risk assessments, 215 (42.5%) were MSM, 89 (17.6%) were symptomatic, 47 (9.3%) were STI contacts, 232 (45.8%) reported condomless sex, 146 (28.9%) reported ≥4 partners in the past 3 months, and 76 (15.0%) reported a recent STI. A total of 63 (12.5%) GCO clients were testing for the first time. For 868 accounts created, 337 (38.8%) were by clinic invitations (0 diagnoses), 298 (34.3%) were by deferred testers (6 diagnoses), 194 (22.4%) were by promotional campaign (3 diagnoses), and 39 (4.5%) were by other means (1 diagnosis).

conclusionsOur evaluation suggests that GCO is an acceptable and feasible approach to engage individuals in testing. Use by first-time testers, repeated use, and STI diagnosis of individuals unable to access immediate clinic-based testing suggest GCO may facilitate uptake of STBBI testing and earlier diagnosis. Use by MSM and individuals reporting sexual risk suggests GCO may reach populations with a higher risk of STI. Motivation to test (eg, unable to access clinical services immediately) appears a key factor underlying GCO use. These findings identify areas for refinement of the testing model, further promotion, and future research (including understanding reasons for drop-off through the service pathway and more comprehensive evaluation of effectiveness). Increased uptake and diagnosis corresponding with expansion of the service within British Columbia will permit future evaluation of this service across varying populations and settings.

Indexed as

InternetAdolescentAdultDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansMalePilot ProjectsPrevalenceSexual BehaviorSexually Transmitted DiseasesYoung Adultdiagnostic testshealth care deliveryhealth services researchInternetintervention studysexually transmitted diseases

Identifiers

PMID28320690
PMCPMC5379018

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.