Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29437984›Full record

ArticleSexually transmitted infections2019

Differences in experiences of barriers to STI testing between clients of the internet-based diagnostic testing service GetCheckedOnline.com and an STI clinic in Vancouver, Canada.

Mark Gilbert, Kimberly Thomson, Travis Salway, Devon Haag, Troy Grennan, Christopher K Fairley, Chris Buchner, Mel Krajden, Perry Kendall, Jean Shoveller and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

11 authors.

Mark GilbertClinical Prevention Services, British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Kimberly ThomsonClinical Prevention Services, British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Travis SalwayClinical Prevention Services, British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Devon HaagClinical Prevention Services, British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Troy GrennanClinical Prevention Services, British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Christopher K FairleyCentral Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Chris BuchnerClinical Operations Communicable Disease & Harm Reduction, Fraser Health Authority, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada.
Mel KrajdenDivision of Laboratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Perry KendallMinistry of Health, Government of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Jean ShovellerSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Gina OgilvieSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Funding

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

Abstract

objectivesInternet-based STI testing programmes may overcome barriers posed by in-clinic testing, though uptake could reflect social gradients. The role these services play in comparison to clinical testing services is unknown. We compared experiences of testing barriers between STI clinic clients to clients of GetCheckedOnline.com (GCO; where clients take a printed lab form to a lab).

methodsOur 10-month cross-sectional study was conducted after GCO was promoted to STI clinic clients and men who have sex with men (MSM). Clinic and GCO clients completed an online survey assessing testing barriers and facilitators; responses were compared using bivariate analysis (level of significance P<0.01; significant results below).

resultsCompared with 321 clinic clients, the 73 GCO clients were more likely to be older (median 35 vs 30 years), MSM (45% vs 16%), be testing routinely (67% vs 39%), have delayed testing for any reason (76% vs 54%) and due to clinic distance (28% vs 9%), report delays due to wait times (50% vs 17%), embarrassment with testing (16% vs 6%), discomfort discussing sexual health where they usually go for testing (39% vs 22%), as well as discomfort discussing sexual history with (19% vs 5%) and fearing judgement from (30% vs 15%) any healthcare provider. GCO clients were less likely to have found clinic hours convenient (59% vs 77%) and clinic appointments easy to make (49% vs 66%), and more likely to report long wait times (50% vs 17%). We found no differences in technology skills/use.

conclusionsIn this urban setting, an internet-based testing service effectively engaged individuals experiencing testing barriers, with few social gradients in uptake. While some testing barriers could be addressed through increasing access to clinical services, others require social and structural changes, highlighting the importance of internet-based STI testing services to increasing test uptake.

Indexed as

InternetAdolescentAdultAgedAmbulatory Care FacilitiesBritish ColumbiaCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareDiagnostic ServicesDiagnostic Tests, RoutineFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansMaleMiddle AgedSexual and Gender Minoritiesgay menintervention studiespublic healthtesting

Identifiers

PMID29437984
PMCPMC6580770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.