Evaluating the evidence: direct-to-consumer screening tests advertised online

Author:

Lovett Kimberly M1,Mackey Timothy K2,Liang Bryan A3

Affiliation:

1. Kaiser Permanente; Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine; Institute of Health Law Studies, California Western School of Law; San Diego Center for Patient Safety, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA, USA

2. Institute of Health Law Studies, California Western School of Law; Joint Doctoral Program in Global Health, University of California, San Diego-San Diego State University; San Diego Center for Patient Safety, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA, USA

3. Institute of Health Law Studies, California Western School of Law; Department of Anesthesiology, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine; San Diego Center for Patient Safety, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA, USA

Abstract

Objectives Unsupervised online direct-to-consumer (DTC) access to medical services has rapidly expanded to medical screening tests, which have not been critically evaluated for their evidence basis. The objective of this study is to identify the scope of online-advertised DTC screening tests, outline the evidence for use of available DTC testing and suggest regulatory reform to address the relevant issues. Methods An observational study of website advertisements, testing services and counselling/follow-up services for DTC testing was conducted. Data were collected from websites between 4 April and 1 June 2011. Each website was assessed for tests offered, advertised indications and availability of counselling/follow-up services. Advertised testing indications were compared with US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations and/or specialty guidelines and categorized as Supported, Against, Insufficient Evidence or No Guidance. Results Of 20 companies identified as offering DTC screening tests, 95% (19/20) do not clearly offer pretest counselling, post-test counselling and/or test follow-up. One hundred and twenty-seven different tests were identified. Only 19/127 (15%) could be Supported for screening in a target group selected for testing; 38/127 (30%) were given recommendations to avoid use in specific target group(s) selected for testing (‘ Against recommendations’); 29/127 (23%) had Insufficient Evidence of value, and for 64/127 (50%) No Guidance could be given. Only 4/127 (3%) tests were Supported for general screening use. Conclusions Virtually all identified medical tests advertised and offered DTC are not recommended for use in screening by evidence-based guidelines. Limited oversight may lead to inaccurate self-diagnosis, treatment and wasted health resources.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3