PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Kirsi Sumray
AU  - Karen C. Lloyd
AU  - Claudia Estcourt
AU  - Fiona Burns
AU  - Jo Gibbs
TI  - Scoping review of online postal sexually transmitted infection services: access, usage and clinical outcomes
AID  - 10.1101/2021.12.10.21267608
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.12.10.21267608
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/11/2021.12.10.21267608.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/11/2021.12.10.21267608.full
AB  - Background There has been considerable expansion in online postal self-sampling STI services in many parts of the UK, driven by increasing demand on sexual health services and developments in diagnostics and digital health provision. This shift in service delivery has occurred against a backdrop of reduced funding and service fragmentation and the impact is unknown. We explored characteristics of people accessing and using online postal self-sampling (OPSS) services for STIs in the UK, the acceptability of these services, and their impact on sexual health inequalities.Methods A scoping review was conducted of studies published in English-language based on pre-agreed inclusion/exclusion criteria, between 01/01/2010 to 07/07/2021. Nine databases were searched, and 23 studies that met the eligibility criteria were included. Studies were appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.Results Study designs were heterogenous, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed method analyses. The majority were either evaluating a single site/self-sampling provider, exploratory or observational and of variable quality. Few studies collected comprehensive user demographic data. Individuals accessing OPSS tended to be asymptomatic, of White ethnicity, women, over 20 years, and from less deprived areas. OPSS tended to increase overall STI testing demand and access, although return rates for blood samples was low, as was test positivity. There were varied results on whether services reduced time to treatment. OPSS services were acceptable to the majority of users. Qualitative studies showed the importance of trust, confidentiality, discretion, reliability, convenience and improved patient choice.Conclusion OPSS services appear highly acceptable to users. However, uptake appears to be socially patterned and some groups that bear a disproportionate burden of poor sexual health in the UK are under-represented among users. Current provision of online self-sampling could widen health inequalities, particularly where other options for testing are limited. Work is needed to fully evaluate the impact and cost-effectiveness of OPSS services.Key messagesAn increasing proportion of STI testing in the UK is occurring via online postal self-sampling servicesService users tend to be asymptomatic, white, women, over 20s, and from less deprived areasOPSS services are acceptable to users and can improve choiceThere is a need for a wide-ranging evaluation of OPSS services to determine their impact on sexual health inequalities, access, clinical outcomes and service deliveryCompeting Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any funding.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors