Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40321888›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Use of GetCheckedOnline and testing through healthcare providers among repeat users of British Columbia's digital testing service for sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections: Findings from a cross-sectional survey.

Mark Gilbert, Aidan Ablona, Hsiu-Ju Chang, Ihoghosa Iyamu, Rodrigo Sierra-Rosales, Heather Pedersen, Paul Flowers, Nathan Lachowsky, Daniel Grace, Catherine Worthington

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Mark GilbertClinical Prevention Services, BC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5978-6843
Aidan AblonaClinical Prevention Services, BC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1436-6276
Hsiu-Ju ChangClinical Prevention Services, BC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0369-2407
Ihoghosa IyamuClinical Prevention Services, BC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0271-9468
Rodrigo Sierra-RosalesClinical Prevention Services, BC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5088-5051
Heather PedersenClinical Prevention Services, BC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Paul FlowersPsychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, Scotland, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6239-5616
Nathan LachowskySchool of Public Health and Social Policy, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6336-8780
Daniel GraceDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9032-3959
Catherine WorthingtonSchool of Public Health and Social Policy, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3075-8229

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Digital testing services for sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections (STBBI) are becoming more common in Canada. There is little evidence supporting the assumption that these services reduce healthcare system burden. To explore this further, we described patterns of provider-based testing among repeat users of a digital STBBI testing service, and their association with access barriers. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey in November 2022 of repeat GetCheckedOnline.com users (≥2 tests, with 1 test between April and October 2022). We stratified participants into three use patterns of GetCheckedOnline for testing, using ordinal logistic regression to examine associations with barriers reflecting availability, accessibility, acceptability and appropriateness of health services (applying weights to adjust for non-responders). Results: Of 798 participants (17.2% of 4633 eligible), 52.6% only and 35.8% mostly tested through GetCheckedOnline; 14.5% tested more often/equally through healthcare providers. Availability was associated with greater use of GetCheckedOnline (e.g., not having a primary care provider, OR 2.03, 95% CI [1.52-2.73]), and appropriateness with lower use (getting tested part of clinical care, OR 0.07 95% CI [0.05-0.11]). Participants < 25 years, high school educated or less or born outside Canada reported greater use of GetCheckedOnline for testing while 2S/LGBTQ+ and full-time employed participants reported lower use. Most participants (88.0%) would have tested through a provider if GetCheckedOnline were not available. Conclusion: GetCheckedOnline use was associated with barriers to the availability of provider-based testing. Digital STBBI testing services may improve access to testing and reduce demands on healthcare providers for testing.

Indexed as

British Columbiahealth servicesinternetscreeningsexually transmitted infections

Identifiers

PMID40321888
PMCPMC12048757

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.