Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2014 Sep 6:14:921.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-921.

The effects of a web-based decision aid on the intention to diagnostic self-testing for cholesterol and diabetes: a randomized controlled trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

The effects of a web-based decision aid on the intention to diagnostic self-testing for cholesterol and diabetes: a randomized controlled trial

Gaby Ronda et al. BMC Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: Diagnostic self-tests are becoming increasingly available. Since the pros and cons of self-testing are unclear and neutral information on self-testing is lacking, two decision aids (DAs) on self-testing for cholesterol and diabetes were developed to support consumers in making an informed choice that is in line with their personal values. We aimed to evaluate the effect of the DAs on the intention to self-test for cholesterol or diabetes, as well as socio-cognitive determinants of that intention.

Methods: 1137 people of an internet panel with an intention to use a diagnostic self-test for cholesterol or diabetes were enrolled in a web-based randomized controlled trial consisting of four groups: a cholesterol intervention and control group and a diabetes intervention and control group. The study was conducted in September and October 2011. The intervention groups received an interactive online DA with general information on self-testing and test-specific information on cholesterol or diabetes self-testing, whereas the control groups received a limited information sheet with general information on self-testing. The intention to use a self-test for cholesterol or diabetes and perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, cues to action, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, self-efficacy and ambivalence towards self-testing were assessed directly after being exposed to the intervention or control information.

Results: Follow-up measurement was completed by 922 people. Analyses showed a significant group by intention at baseline interaction effect within the diabetes condition. Further exploration of this interaction showed that a main group-effect was only observed among maybe-intenders; intention of participants in the intervention group did not change between baseline and follow-up, while intention slightly increased in the control group. We observed a significant main effect of group on cues to action in the cholesterol condition.

Conclusions: We found limited effects of the DAs on intention and its determinants. Although the time spent on the DAs was limited, we might assume that our DAs contain neutral information on self-testing for cholesterol and diabetes. By implementing our DAs in real life among people who probably or definitely intend to use a self-test and by assessing weblog files, we might be able to determine the effectiveness of our DAs on self-test behaviour.

Dutch trial register: NTR3149.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of RCT. *To create groups of equal size in both study arms, 76 of the respondents with an equal strong intention were assigned to the cholesterol arm and 231 to the diabetes arm.

References

    1. Van der Weijden T, Ronda G, Norg R, Portegijs P, Buntinx F, Dinant GJ. Diagnostische zelftests op lichaamsmateriaal: aanbod, validiteit en gebruik door de consument [Diagnostic self-tests on body materials: availability, validity and frequency of use] Maastricht: Maastricht University, School for Public Health and Primary Care (Caphri); 2007.
    1. Ronda G, Portegijs P, Dinant GJ, Buntinx F, Norg R, Van der Weijden T. Use of diagnostic self-tests on body materials among Internet users in the Netherlands: prevalence and correlates of use. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:100. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-100. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ryan A, Wilson S, Greenfield S, Clifford S, McManus RJ, Pattison HM. Range of self-tests available to buy in the United Kingdom: an Internet survey. J Public Health. 2006;28:370–374. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdl051. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ickenroth MHP, Ronda G, Grispen JEJ, Dinant GJ, De Vries N, Van der Weijden T. How do people respond to self-test results? A cross-sectional survey. BMC Fam. Pract. 2010;11:77. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-11-77. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Campbell S, Klein R. Home testing to detect human immunodeficiency virus: boon or bane? J. Clin. Microbiol. 2006;44:3473–3476. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01511-06. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Pre-publication history
    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/921/prepub

Publication types

Associated data