ArticleJMIR formative research2024
User Views on Online Sexual Health Symptom Checker Tool: Qualitative Research.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Getting Everyone on Board to Break the Cycle of Bacterial Vaginosis (BV) Recurrence: A Qualitative Study of Partner Treatment for BV.The patient · 2025Article
- Accuracy of symptom checker for the diagnosis of sexually transmitted infections using machine learning and Bayesian network algorithms.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDelayed diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) contributes to poorer health outcomes and onward transmission to sexual partners. Access to best-practice sexual health care may be limited by barriers such as cost, distance to care providers, sexual stigma, and trust in health care providers. Online assessments of risk offer a novel means of supporting access to evidence-based sexual health information, testing, and treatment by providing more individualized sexual health information based on user inputs.
objectiveThis developmental evaluation aims to find potential users' views and experiences in relation to an online assessment of risk, called iSpySTI (Melbourne Sexual Health Center), including the likely impacts of use.
methodsIndividuals presenting with urogenital symptoms to a specialist sexual health clinic were given the opportunity to trial a web-based, Bayesian-powered tool that provides a list of 2 to 4 potential causes of their symptoms based on inputs of known STI risk factors and symptoms. Those who tried the tool were invited to participate in a once-off, semistructured research interview. Descriptive, action, and emotion coding informed the comparative analysis of individual cases.
resultsFindings from interviews with 14 people who had used the iSpySTI tool support the superiority of the online assessment of STI risk compared to existing sources of sexual health information (eg, internet search engines) in providing trusted and probabilistic information to users. Additionally, potential users reported benefits to their emotional well-being in the intervening period between noticing symptoms and being able to access care. Differences in current and imagined urgency of health care seeking and emotional impacts were found based on clinical diagnosis (eg, non-STI, curable and incurable but treatable STIs) and whether participants were born in Australia or elsewhere.
conclusionsOnline assessments of risk provide users experiencing urogenital symptoms with more individualized and evidence-based health information that can improve their health care-seeking and provide reassurance in the period before they can access care.
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.