BACKGROUND: Diagnostic self-tests (tests on body materials that are initiated by consumers with the aim of diagnosing a disorder or risk factor) are becoming increasingly available. Although the pros and cons of self-testing are currently not clear, it is an existing phenomenon that is likely to gain further popularity. OBJECTIVE: To examine consumers' use of and needs for information about self-testing, and to assess the quality of consumer information provided with home test kits, as perceived by consumers and as assessed using a checklist of quality criteria. METHODS: A cross-sectional Internet survey among 305 self-testers assessed their use of and needs for information and their perception of the quality of consumer information provided with self-test kits. A meta-search engine was used to identify Dutch and English consumer information for home diagnostic tests available online at the time of the study. The quality of this consumer information was evaluated using a checklist of quality criteria. RESULTS: The consumers' information needs were in line with the most frequently used information, and the information was perceived as being of moderate to good quality. The information was mostly in agreement with clinical practice guidelines, although information on reliability and follow-up behaviour was limited. Approximately half of the instruction leaflets did not include information on the target group of the test. CONCLUSIONS: Although generally of moderate to good quality, some aspects of the information provided were in many cases insufficient. European legislation concerning self-tests and accompanying information needs to be adapted and adhered to more closely.
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic self-tests (tests on body materials that are initiated by consumers with the aim of diagnosing a disorder or risk factor) are becoming increasingly available. Although the pros and cons of self-testing are currently not clear, it is an existing phenomenon that is likely to gain further popularity. OBJECTIVE: To examine consumers' use of and needs for information about self-testing, and to assess the quality of consumer information provided with home test kits, as perceived by consumers and as assessed using a checklist of quality criteria. METHODS: A cross-sectional Internet survey among 305 self-testers assessed their use of and needs for information and their perception of the quality of consumer information provided with self-test kits. A meta-search engine was used to identify Dutch and English consumer information for home diagnostic tests available online at the time of the study. The quality of this consumer information was evaluated using a checklist of quality criteria. RESULTS: The consumers' information needs were in line with the most frequently used information, and the information was perceived as being of moderate to good quality. The information was mostly in agreement with clinical practice guidelines, although information on reliability and follow-up behaviour was limited. Approximately half of the instruction leaflets did not include information on the target group of the test. CONCLUSIONS: Although generally of moderate to good quality, some aspects of the information provided were in many cases insufficient. European legislation concerning self-tests and accompanying information needs to be adapted and adhered to more closely.
Authors: Glyn Elwyn; Annette O'Connor; Dawn Stacey; Robert Volk; Adrian Edwards; Angela Coulter; Richard Thomson; Alexandra Barratt; Michael Barry; Steven Bernstein; Phyllis Butow; Aileen Clarke; Vikki Entwistle; Deb Feldman-Stewart; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; Nora Moumjid; Al Mulley; Cornelia Ruland; Karen Sepucha; Alan Sykes; Tim Whelan Journal: BMJ Date: 2006-08-14
Authors: Glyn Elwyn; Annette M O'Connor; Carol Bennett; Robert G Newcombe; Mary Politi; Marie-Anne Durand; Elizabeth Drake; Natalie Joseph-Williams; Sara Khangura; Anton Saarimaki; Stephanie Sivell; Mareike Stiel; Steven J Bernstein; Nananda Col; Angela Coulter; Karen Eden; Martin Härter; Margaret Holmes Rovner; Nora Moumjid; Dawn Stacey; Richard Thomson; Tim Whelan; Trudy van der Weijden; Adrian Edwards Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-03-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Gaby Ronda; Janaica E J Grispen; Martine H P Ickenroth; Geert-Jan Dinant; Nanne K De Vries; Trudy Van der Weijden Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-09-06 Impact factor: 3.295