Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35414607›Full record

ArticleSexually transmitted infections2023

Assessment of online self-testing and self-sampling service providers for sexually transmitted infections against national standards in the UK in 2020.

Eleanor Clarke, Paddy J Horner, Peter Muir, Katy M E Turner, Emma Michele Harding-Esch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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.

Eleanor ClarkeClinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6871-9415
Paddy J HornerNIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, School of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Peter MuirSouth West Regional Laboratory, National Infection Service, United Kingdom Health Security Agency, Bristol, UK.
Katy M E TurnerNIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, School of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8152-6017
Emma Michele Harding-EschClinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK Emma.Harding-Esch@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1432-8109

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesOnline testing for STIs may help overcome barriers of traditional face-to-face testing, such as stigma and inconvenience. However, regulation of these online tests is lacking, and the quality of services is variable, with potential short-term and long-term personal, clinical and public health implications. This study aimed to evaluate online self-testing and self-sampling service providers in the UK against national standards.

methodsProviders of online STI tests (self-sampling and self-testing) in the UK were identified by an internet search of Google and Amazon (June 2020). Website information on tests and associated services was collected and further information was requested from providers via an online survey, sent twice (July 2020, April 2021). The information obtained was compared with British Association for Sexual Health and HIV and Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare guidelines and standards for diagnostics and STI management.

results31 providers were identified: 13 self-test, 18 self-sample and 2 laboratories that serviced multiple providers. Seven responded to the online survey. Many conflicts with national guidelines were identified, including: lack of health promotion information, lack of sexual history taking, use of tests licensed for professional-use only marketed for self-testing, inappropriate infections tested for, incorrect specimen type used and lack of advice for postdiagnosis management.

conclusionsVery few online providers met the national STI management standards assessed, and there is concern that this will also be the case for service provision aspects that were not covered by this study. For-profit providers were the least compliant, with concerning implications for patient care and public health. Regulatory change is urgently needed to ensure that all online providers are compliant with national guidelines to ensure high-quality patient care, and providers are held to account if non-compliant.

Indexed as

Sexual HealthSexually Transmitted DiseasesHumansSelf-TestingSexual BehaviorUnited Kingdomantimicrobial resistancepublic healthsexual healthtesting

Identifiers

PMID35414607
PMCPMC9887362

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.