Web design and implementation factors associated with missed opportunities to provide testing on GetCheckedOnline, British Columbias digital testing service for sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections: 2022 client experience survey findings.
Iyamu, I. O.; Ablona, A.; Chang, H.-J.; Pedersen, H.; Haag, D.; Worthington, C.; Grace, D.; Salmon, A.; Koehoorn, M.; Gilbert, M.
Show abstract
BackgroundWe assessed associations between web-design/implementation factors and missed opportunities to provide testing via GetCheckedOnline and assessed if these associations were modified by sociodemographic factors. MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted in November and December 2022 among clients who indicated needing testing when they created accounts between April and October 2022. Web-design (user interface and experience) and implementation (organization of clinical services around the website) factors were independently modelled against missed opportunities (self-reported inability/unwillingness to test despite needing testing at account creation) using multivariable logistic regression. Effect modification by sociodemographic factors were also conducted. ResultsAmong 572 respondents needing testing at account creation, 183 (32.0%, 95%CI: 28.18-35.99%) experienced missed opportunities. Web-design factors associated with missed opportunities were difficulty using GetCheckedOnlines website (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.40, 95%CI:1.68-6.87), while implementation factors were difficulty getting to a laboratory (aOR:3.26, 95%CI:1.97-5.41); perceived inadequacy of tests offered through GetCheckedOnline (aOR:1.81, 95%CI:1.11-2.95) and being likely to complete testing if self-sampling was available (aOR:2.12, 95%CI:1.32-3.42). Findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses but concerns about privacy and security of personal information on GetCheckedOnline (aOR:1.93, 95%CI:1.11-3.35) was associated with missed opportunities. Sociodemographic factors modified associations as respondents with annual income < $20,000CAD, not employed full-time, immigrants, men (who did not agree GetCheckedOnline offered all needed tests) and women (who experienced difficulties getting to a laboratory) had higher odds missed opportunities. ConclusionsSimplifying web-design, ensuring optimal client education, and including more laboratory locations and self-sampling as options for testing, could reduce missed opportunities and promote equitable access to GetCheckedOnline. Author SummaryDigital health interventions like GetCheckedOnline aim to improve access to testing for sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections (STBBIs), but barriers related to web design and service implementation can limit their impact. Our study, based on a 2022 client experience survey, examined how these factors contribute to missed opportunities for testing among GetCheckedOnline users in British Columbia, Canada. We found that 32% of users who created accounts intending to test, reported not testing through the service. They reported barriers including difficulty navigating the website, accessing laboratories, and concerns about the adequacy of available tests. Importantly, these barriers varied across sociodemographic groups, with individuals with lower incomes, immigrants, and women facing the greatest challenges. Our findings suggest that simplifying website navigation, expanding laboratory access, and introducing self-sampling options could reduce missed opportunities and improve equitable access to digital STBBI testing. These insights highlight the need for ongoing, data-driven optimizations to ensure digital health services effectively reach those who face the greatest barriers to care.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Engagement with daily testing instead of self-isolating in contacts of confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 96%
- Hair salons as a promising space to provide HIV and sexual and reproductive health services for young women in Lesotho: A citizen scientist mixed-methods study 95%
- The social media response to twice-weekly mass asymptomatic testing in England 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Sources of Successful Participant Engagement in a Public Health Research Study: a Focus on a Latino Community 96%
- Health worker acceptability of an HIV testing mobile health application within a rural Zambian HIV treatment programme 95%
- Opening the digital doorway to sexual healthcare: Recommendations from a Behaviour Change Wheel analysis of barriers and facilitators to seeking online sexual health information and support among underserved populations 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Using a Multilingual AI Care Agent to Reduce Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Higher FIT Test Adoption Among Spanish-Speaking Patients 94%
- The Lifecycle of Electronic Health Record Data in HIV-Related Big Data Studies: A Qualitative Study of Instances of and Potential Opportunities to Minimize Bias 94%
- Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based Chatbots in Promoting Health Behavioral Changes: A Systematic Review 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Defining Destigmatizing Design Guidelines for Use in Sexual Health-Related Digital Technologies: A Delphi Study 95%
- Developing contents for a digital drug adherence tool with reminder cues and personalized feedback: a formative mixed-methods study among children and adolescents living with HIV in Tanzania 94%
- The NASSS (Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread and Sustainability) framework use over time: A scoping review 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Self-tests for COVID-19: what is the evidence? A living systematic review and meta-analysis (2020-2023) 95%
- Female Sex Worker Preferences for HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Delivery in Uganda: A Discrete Choice Experiment 94%
- Identifying and preventing fraudulent responses in online public health surveys: Lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.