Martine Ickenroth*, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands Janaica Grispen, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands Geert-jan Dinant, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands Nanne De Vries, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands Gaby Ronda, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands Trudy Van Der Weijden*, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands Track: Research Presentation Topic: Health information on the web: Supply and Demand Presentation Type: Oral presentation Submission Type: Single Presentation Building: MECC Room: 0.8 Rome Date: 2010-11-30 01:00 PM – 02:30 PM Last modified: 2010-09-21

If you are the presenter of this abstract (or if you cite this abstract in a talk or on a poster), please show the QR code in your slide or poster (QR code contains this URL).

Background: Self-tests, which give consumers the possibility to test themselves on medical conditions without consulting a doctor, are increasingly available. We measured the frequency of self-testing on body materials in a survey among Internet users in September 2008. Eighteen percent (N=799) of the respondents (N=4416) had ever used a self-test, the most frequently used tests being those for diabetes (5.3%), kidney disease (4.9%), cholesterol (4.5%), urinary tract infection (1.9%) and HIV/ AIDS and Chlamydia (both 1.6%). However, it is still unclear whether these tests stimulate self-management and actually prevent disease, or whether self-testing might result in a higher burden on the health care system, for example when false-positive results lead to further and more expensive investigations. Since these tests are available, consumers should have access to information about the pros and cons of self-testing, how to perform the test, how to adequately interpret the test result and to define their follow-up behaviour.

Objectives: To develop an online decision aid for self-testing for two specific self-tests (cholesterol and diabetes), that meets consumers’ information needs and that is tested on its user-friendliness.

Methods: Input for the decision aid was derived from qualitative and quantitative research. Interviews with self-testers resulted in more in-depth information on reasons for using a self-test, problems in performing and interpreting the test result, engagement in follow-up behaviour, and perceived need for information. The quality of currently available consumer information that is provided with the self-test was assessed by a checklist based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) checklist and Dutch In vitro Diagnostics (IVD) guidelines. After a first online decision aid is developed, usability testing will be used to assess the user-friendliness of the decision aid. Results will be used for further development of the decision aid.

Results: Interviews with self-testers showed that consumers had often engaged in self-testing without weighing the pros and cons of performing a self-test thoroughly, and that self-testers had ample confidence in the test result. Most of them had perceived no problems in performing the self-test, and thought the information provided with the test was sufficient to properly perform a self-test and interpret the test-result. On the other hand, our analysis of the consumer information showed that information concerning reliability and validity was insufficient and in some cases even lacking. Instructions on how to perform the test and background information on the medical condition were in general adequate. The decision aid focuses on the pros and cons of self-testing, and especially the pitfalls when interpreting the test result in terms of possible false-positive and false-negative results. Results of the usability testing will be available at the time of the conference.

Conclusions: Previous research has provided valuable information in the development of an online decision aid for self-testing. Usability testing will be the final step in the development of comprehensible and user-friendly consumer information.