Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Online tests for sexually transmitted infections – Friend or Foe? An analysis of providers in the United Kingdom

Eleanor Clarke, View ORCID ProfilePaddy Horner, View ORCID ProfilePeter Muir, View ORCID ProfileKaty M. E. Turner, View ORCID ProfileEmma M. Harding-Esch
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.01.21259784
Eleanor Clarke
1London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Clinical Research Department, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paddy Horner
2University of Bristol, Bristol Medical School, School of Population Health Sciences, UK
3NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at University of Bristol
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Paddy Horner
Peter Muir
4Public Health England, South West Regional Laboratory, Bristol, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Peter Muir
Katy M. E. Turner
2University of Bristol, Bristol Medical School, School of Population Health Sciences, UK
3NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at University of Bristol
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Katy M. E. Turner
Emma M. Harding-Esch
1London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Clinical Research Department, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Emma M. Harding-Esch
  • For correspondence: Emma.harding-esch{at}lshtm.ac.uk
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Objectives Online testing for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) may contribute to overcoming barriers to traditional testing such as stigma and inconvenience. However, regulation of these tests is lacking, and the quality of services is variable, with potential short- and long-term personal, clinical and public health implications. This study aimed to evaluate online tests available in the UK against national standards.

Methods Providers 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 care was collected, and further information requested from providers via an online survey, sent twice (July 2020, April 2021). The information obtained was compared to British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) guidelines for diagnostics and standards of STI management.

Results 31 providers were identified: 13 self-test, 18-self-sample, and two 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 post-diagnosis management.

Conclusions Very few online providers met the BASHH national STI management guidelines standards that were assessed, and there is concern that this will also be the case in areas 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 online providers are compliant with national guidelines to ensure high-quality patient care, and providers are held to account if non-compliant.

Key message box

  • Online providers help overcome many barriers to STI testing and are increasingly popular, but quality of services is not assured

  • Many online testing services, particularly for-profit providers, did not comply with national guidelines

  • Substandard services can lead to serious personal, clinical and public health

  • implications, such as inappropriate testing, inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing, unnecessary emotional distress and missed diagnoses

  • Regulatory change is required to ensure online providers comply with national guidelines and are held to account when they do not

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This work received no direct funding. KMET acknowledges support from HDRUK CFC 0129 and PH and KMET acknowledge support from the Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, NIHR 200877, at University of Bristol

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

MSc Research Ethics Committee of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (reference number 22195).

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author, [EMHE]. Some data are not publicly available because participants of this study did not agree for their data to be shared publicly

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted July 05, 2021.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Online tests for sexually transmitted infections – Friend or Foe? An analysis of providers in the United Kingdom
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Online tests for sexually transmitted infections – Friend or Foe? An analysis of providers in the United Kingdom
Eleanor Clarke, Paddy Horner, Peter Muir, Katy M. E. Turner, Emma M. Harding-Esch
medRxiv 2021.07.01.21259784; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.01.21259784
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Online tests for sexually transmitted infections – Friend or Foe? An analysis of providers in the United Kingdom
Eleanor Clarke, Paddy Horner, Peter Muir, Katy M. E. Turner, Emma M. Harding-Esch
medRxiv 2021.07.01.21259784; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.01.21259784

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Sexual and Reproductive Health
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (430)
  • Allergy and Immunology (756)
  • Anesthesia (221)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (3298)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (365)
  • Dermatology (280)
  • Emergency Medicine (479)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (1173)
  • Epidemiology (13383)
  • Forensic Medicine (19)
  • Gastroenterology (899)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (5157)
  • Geriatric Medicine (482)
  • Health Economics (783)
  • Health Informatics (3273)
  • Health Policy (1143)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (1193)
  • Hematology (432)
  • HIV/AIDS (1019)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (14636)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (913)
  • Medical Education (478)
  • Medical Ethics (127)
  • Nephrology (525)
  • Neurology (4930)
  • Nursing (262)
  • Nutrition (730)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (885)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (795)
  • Oncology (2524)
  • Ophthalmology (727)
  • Orthopedics (282)
  • Otolaryngology (347)
  • Pain Medicine (323)
  • Palliative Medicine (90)
  • Pathology (544)
  • Pediatrics (1302)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (551)
  • Primary Care Research (557)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (4218)
  • Public and Global Health (7511)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1708)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (1016)
  • Respiratory Medicine (980)
  • Rheumatology (480)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (498)
  • Sports Medicine (424)
  • Surgery (549)
  • Toxicology (72)
  • Transplantation (236)
  • Urology (205)