Skip Navigation


Journal of Public Health Advance Access originally published online on October 18, 2006
Journal of Public Health 2006 28(4):370-374; doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdl051
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
28/4/370    most recent
fdl051v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ryan, A.
Right arrow Articles by Pattison, H. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ryan, A.
Right arrow Articles by Pattison, H. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006, Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Faculty of Public Health. All rights reserved.

Range of self-tests available to buy in the United Kingdom: an Internet survey



A. Ryan, Clinical Research Fellow1

S. Wilson, Reader in Clinical Epidemiology1

S. Greenfield, Senior Lecturer1

S. Clifford, Project Officer1

R. J. McManus, Clinical Senior Lecturer1

H. M. Pattison, Senior Lecturer2
1 Department of Primary Care and General Practice, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
2 School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK

Address correspondence to A. Ryan, E-mail: a.v.ryan{at}bham.ac.uk

We aimed to describe the availability in the United Kingdom of self-tests that are used to diagnose or screen for conditions without involving a health professional. A systematic Internet search identified 104 unique self-tests related to 24 named conditions including cancers, chronic conditions and infections. These self-tests require various samples including blood obtained using a lancet. The samples are processed at home with results available in minutes or sent to a laboratory for processing with results returned to the individual by e-mail or post. Prices per self-test and condition range from <£1 to £76. Self-tests are readily available, and further work is needed to assess their impact.

Keywords: diagnosis; diagnostic tests, routine; self-care


   Introduction
TOP
 Introduction
Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 Contributors
 Competing interest
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
As technologies to design and manufacture diagnostic tests have developed, a range of self-tests to diagnose or screen for conditions have become available to the public to buy over the counter and via the Internet.1 These self-tests do not require the user to communicate with a doctor before obtaining the test or when receiving the results: the results are available at home within minutes or a sample is sent to a laboratory and the results are returned directly to the user.

Self-tests have potential benefits, for example privacy or convenience, but also potential harms such as the distress caused by false-positive results.2 Despite the potential impact of self-tests, a comprehensive literature review identified only one recent survey in the United Kingdom that asked participants about whether they had used home-testing kits, and this was part of a study on attitudes to genetic testing.3 This lack of information, other than market research, led us to plan a study to describe the prevalence of the use of self-tests. To inform the design of this study, we undertook a systematic Internet search to identify self-tests that are available in the United Kingdom.


   Methods
TOP
 Introduction
 Methods
Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 Contributors
 Competing interest
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
About 95% of searches in the United Kingdom are powered by four search engines: Google, Yahoo, MSN and Ask.4 In April 2006, we used these search engines to search the web for (self test OR self diagnosis OR home test OR home diagnosis) and each term individually. The entire web was searched, rather than just UK sites, to ensure that tests that are sold from other countries to UK customers were also identified. Because ~70% of users move on if they have not found what they are looking for on the first two pages,5 we reviewed descriptions of the first 20 sites returned from each search and any sponsored sites on those pages. Sites that were obviously not relevant and directories were excluded, and the remaining sites were explored in April and May 2006.

We collected details of tests that, based on the description given, met the inclusion criteria and did not meet the exclusion criteria. A test was included if it could be purchased and used by a member of the UK public without involving a doctor, nurse or other health professional; if it detected a disease or condition that may need treatment or a risk factor or marker for such diseases or conditions; and if it required the user to take a sample and process it at home or send it to a laboratory with results returned by post or e-mail. A test was excluded if it could not be purchased by a member of the UK public, including if it was reported as being out of stock; if it was for pregnancy, other normal states or monitoring existing conditions; if it was only sold in large batches, unless it was specifically stated that the test was for home use; if purchase required approval from a health professional, a prescription or correctly answered screening questions; or if it required a separate meter or testing device.

Costs were collected including shipping and tax where this information was given. Some self-tests were sold in packs or were for more than one condition, and the cost per test and condition was calculated. Where prices were only given in dollars, they were converted to pounds using the exchange rate at the beginning of May 2006 (£1 = $1.82).


   Results
TOP
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
Discussion
 Conclusions
 Contributors
 Competing interest
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
We collected details of 167 self-tests, which were advertised by 19 retailers. Nine retailers were based in the United Kingdom, seven in the United States, one in the Netherlands, one in Taiwan and one did not state where they were based.

Some self-tests were sold by more than one retailer, and there were 104 unique tests. These tests relate to 24 named conditions (Table 1) including cancers (e.g. tests for faecal occult blood and prostate-specific antigen), chronic conditions (e.g. tests related to diabetes and cardiovascular disease), acute infections (e.g. tests for urinary and sexually transmitted infections) and serious chronic infections (e.g. tests for HIV infection). Self-tests related to male and female infertility and allergies were also available. Some self-tests were for more than one condition, for example, chlamydia and gonorrhoea.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1 Self-tests available to members of the UK public identified during an Internet search in April and May 2006

 

The self-tests required various samples: blood, stool, saliva, semen, urine or vaginal discharge. Where a blood sample was required, this was a finger prick sample obtained using a lancet. The samples were processed at home with results available in minutes or sent to a laboratory for processing with results returned by e-mail or post after several days.

Prices per self-test and condition, including postage or shipping where this information was available, ranged from <£1 for various urine tests or a test for vaginal infection to £76 for a test for human papillomavirus. Over 80% (n = 86) of the 104 unique self-tests had a maximum price of <£30.


   Discussion
TOP
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
Conclusions
 Contributors
 Competing interest
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Main findings of this study
This study demonstrates that a wide range of self-tests are available, many at a reasonable price.

What is already known on this topic
Although previous articles mention that self-tests are available,1,6 we have not been able to identify any systematic study detailing their availability in the United Kingdom. A comprehensive literature review also identified only one recent survey in the United Kingdom that asked about the use of home-testing kits, and this was part of a study on attitudes to genetic testing.3 In that survey, the respondents were asked whether they had bought a health-testing kit to carry out at home with pregnancy tests cited as an example. Thirty-two percent of the 2510 respondents said that they had done so, but the question did not specify whether the test was to monitor an existing condition or diagnose a new condition, and the response rate was only 44%.

What this study adds
This study demonstrates the potential for self-testing for a wide range of conditions by members of the UK public. People can find out about self-tests using the Internet, and purchase of such tests is fairly straightforward and does not require consultation with a health professional. Self-tests do have potential benefits, for example privacy and convenience, but they may also have potential harms, for example distress caused by false-positive results2 or risks associated with false-negative results. Other potential problems include extra pressure on primary health care professionals and NHS laboratories because people seek an explanation of results or further investigation.7 A recent British Medical Association report highlighted that ad hoc screening can put people at risk because of a lack of evidence underpinning tests and insufficient quality assurance and accompanying information.8

Limitations of this study
We wanted to identify tests that involve a change in behaviour from diagnosis in a professional setting to diagnosis in a lay setting, and inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed based on this. We included tests that required the user to take a sample because we felt that this has previously been viewed as the domain of the professional, whereas pregnancy tests were excluded because women have used them for some time and their use is probably now expected by doctors. Although this study sets a baseline and indicates availability within these stated criteria, the appropriate criteria may need refinement in the future as further tests are developed. Our criteria exclude self-initiated imaging or screening tests based on, for example, changes in mental state or perception, but an Early Alert Alzheimer’s Home Screening Test has already been reported as being available in the United States based on scratch-and-sniff style scents.9

We attempted to verify that each self-test that we identified could be purchased by a member of the UK public, but it was not always possible to do so without actually purchasing the test. We may, therefore, have erroneously included a small number of tests where the retailer would only refuse to ship to the United Kingdom after credit card details were submitted. Even so, the identification of nine retailers in the United Kingdom is an indication of the general level of availability. Furthermore, this study was systematic rather than exhaustive, and there are likely to be other self-tests that were not identified during this study.

Retailers provided varying amounts of information on their websites. Even with our background knowledge, it was sometimes difficult to determine from the information provided exactly what the test detected, what doing the test involved and the sample that was required. Although we tried to determine the number of unique tests that were available by looking for duplicate tests, we were limited by the amount of descriptive information available from some retailers.


   Conclusions
TOP
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
Contributors
 Competing interest
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Self-tests are widely available. We are currently conducting a study to describe the prevalence of their use and factors associated with using them, but further work is needed to assess the impact of self-test use on individuals, the population and health services.


   Contributors
TOP
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 Contributors
Competing interest
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
All authors were responsible for the overall design of this study. A.R., S.C., S.G. and S.W. designed the Internet search. S.C. conducted a preliminary Internet search, and A.R. conducted the full Internet search and collected details of eligible self-tests. A.R. collated the data and prepared the report with input from all authors.


   Competing interest
TOP
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 Contributors
 Competing interest
Acknowledgements
 References
 
None.


   Acknowledgements
TOP
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 Contributors
 Competing interest
 Acknowledgements
References
 
We thank the other members of the Self-Test Study Steering Group, Cyril Chapman, David Fitzmaurice and John Marriott, for commenting on the design of this study.

Funding
A.R. holds a Department of Health Researcher Development Award. S.W. holds a Department of Health Career Scientist Award.


   References
TOP
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 Contributors
 Competing interest
 Acknowledgements
 References
 

  1. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. Postnote. Medical Self-Test Kits. London, 2003.
  2. Haddow LJ, Robinson AJ. A case of a false positive result on a home HIV test obtained on the internet. Sex Transm Infect 2005; 81:359–62[Free Full Text]
  3. YouGov Limited.Public attitudes to genetic testing. A quantitative study for the Human Genetics Commission. London, 2003.
  4. Hitwise UK.Hitwise UK Search Update. Google powers three-quarters of UK searches. http://www.hitwise.co.uk/press-center/hitwiseHS2004/uk-search-update-19042996.php (24 April 2006, date last accessed).
  5. iProspect. Search Engine User Behavior Study. April 2006. http://www.iprospect.com/premiumPDFs/WhitePaper_2006_SearchEngine UserBehavior.pdf#search=‘Jupiter%20research%20iprospect’ (19 June 2006, date last accessed).
  6. Ludgate S, Molyneaux A. How the MHRA can help pharmacists ensure the safety of OTC testing kits. Pharm J 2004;273:64–5.
  7. Human Genetics Commission. Genes direct. Ensuring the effective oversight of genetic tests supplied directly to the public. A report by the Human Genetics Commission. London, 2003.
  8. British Medical Association Board of Science. Population screening and genetic testing. A briefing on current programmes and technologies. London, 2005.
  9. Kier FJ, Molinari V. ‘Do-It-Yourself ’ Dementia Testing: Issues Regarding an Alzheimer’s Home Screening Test. Gerontologist 2003;43(3):295–301.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
28/4/370    most recent
fdl051v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ryan, A.
Right arrow Articles by Pattison, H. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ryan, A.
Right arrow Articles by Pattison, H. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?