Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Psychological, situational and application-related determinants of the intention to self-test: a factorial survey among students

Authors: Pinar Kuecuekbalaban, Tim Rostalski, Silke Schmidt, Holger Muehlan

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Internet enables an unprecedented opportunity to access a broad range of self-tests (e.g. testing for HIV, cancer, hepatitis B/C), which can be conducted by lay consumers without the help of a health professional. However, there is only little knowledge about the determinants of the use of self-tests. Thus, the aims of this study were (1) to experimentally investigate the impact of situational and application-related characteristics on the intention to use a self-test (ST), compared to being tested by a health professional at home (HPH) or at a doctor’s office (HPD), (2) to examine the applicability of social-cognitive health behaviour theories on self-testing, and (3) to explore the advantages of integrating technological affinity into social-cognitive health behaviour models to predict self-testing.

Methods

In a factorial survey, 1248 vignettes were rated by 208 students. The core concepts of social-cognitive health behaviour theories, technological affinity, and different situational and application-related characteristics were investigated.

Results

Intention to ST was only predicted by the medical expertise of the tested person, while HPH and HPD were also associated with the application purpose of the test and the presence of an emotionally supporting person. Perceived severity and outcome-expectancy significantly predicted intention to self-test. Technological enthusiastic people had a higher intention to use a self-test.

Conclusions

Intention to ST, HPH and HPD were predicted by different situational and application-related characteristics. Social-cognitive health behaviour theories can be applied to predict self-testing and do not need to be extended by technological affinity.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Ryan A, Wilson S, Greenfield S, Clifford S, McManus R, Pattison H. Range of self-tests available to buy in the United Kingdom: an internet survey. J Public Health. 2006;28(4):370–4.CrossRef
2.
Ronda G, Portegijs P, Dinant G-J, 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(1):100.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Grispen J, Ronda G, Dinant G-J, de Vries N, van der Weijden T. To test or not to test: a cross-sectional survey of the psychosocial determinants of self-testing for cholesterol, glucose, and HIV. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):112.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Ickenroth MHP, Ronda G, Grispen JEJ, Dinant G-J, 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Michel C-EC, Saison FG, Joshi H, Mahilum-Tapay LM, Lee HH. Pitfalls of internet-accessible diagnostic tests: inadequate performance of a CE-marked Chlamydia test for home use. Sex Transm Infect. 2009;85(3):187–9.CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Ryan A, Wilson S, Taylor A, Greenfield S. Factors associated with self-care activities among adults in the United Kingdom: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2009;9(1):96.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Ickenroth MHP, Grispen J, Ronda G, Tacken M, Dinant G-J, de Vries NK, van der Weijden T. Motivation and experiences of self-testers regarding tests for cardiovascular risk factors. Health Expect. 2014;17(1):60–72.
9.
Grispen J, Ickenroth MHP, de Vries NK, van der Weijden T, Ronda G. Quality and use of consumer information provided with home test kits: room for improvement. Health Expect. 2014;17(5):741–52.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Ryan A, Wilson S, Greenfield S. Prevalence of the use of self-tests by adults in the United Kingdom: a questionnaire survey. J Public Health. 2010;32(4):519–25.CrossRef
11.
Muehlan H, Kuecuekbalaban P, Schmidt S. Diagnostische Direct-to-Consumer-Tests – Einstellungen, Verfügbarkeit, Inanspruchnahme [Diagnostic direct-to-consumer-Tests - Attitudes, availability, utilisation]. In: eHealth 2015 Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien im Gesundheitswesen. Edited by Duesberg F. Solingen: medical future; 2015: 164–166.
12.
Kopetsch T. The medical profession in Germany: past trends, current state and future prospects. Cah Sociol Demogr Med. 2004;44(1):43–70.PubMed
13.
Natanzon I, Szecsenyi J, Ose D, Joos S. Future potential country doctor: the perspectives of German GPs. Rural Remote Health. 2010;10(2):1347.PubMed
14.
Kuecuekbalaban P, Schmidt S, Kraft K, Hoffmann W, Muehlan H. Exploring risks and benefits of point-of-care tests for healthcare and self-tests for laypersons: an interview study assessing complementary expert perspectives on diagnostic lab-on-a-chip systems. Technol Health Care. 2014;22(6):817–33.PubMed
15.
Ryan A, Greenfield S, Wilson S. Prevalence and determinants of the use of self-tests by members of the public: a mixed methods study. BMC Public Health. 2006;6(1):1–5.CrossRef
16.
Ryan A, Ives J, Wilson S, Greenfield S. Why members of the public self-test: an interview study. Fam Pract. 2010;27(5):570–81.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Karrer K, Glaser C, Clemens C, Bruder C. Technikaffinität erfassen - Der Fragebogen TA-EG [measuring technological affinity - the questionnaire TA-EG]. In: Lichtenstein A, Stößel C, Düsseldorf CC, editors. Der Mensch als Mittelpunkt technischer Systeme. Volume 8. Berliner Werkstatt Mensch-Maschine-Systeme. Germany: VDI Verlag GmbH; 2009. p. 196–201.
18.
Hahn A, Von Lengerke T: Evaluating a cholesterol screening: Risk appraisals, outcome expectancies, and self-efficacy beliefs as predictors of physical exercise and alcohol consumption. In: Advances in health psychology research. Volume 1, Edited by Schwarzer R. Berlin: Freie Universität; 1998.
19.
Becker MH. The health belief model and personal health behavior. Thorofare, NJ: Slack; 1974.
20.
Rosenstock IM. The health belief model: explaining health behavior through expectancies. In: Glanz K, Lewis FM, Rimer BK, editors. Heatlth behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1990. p. 39–62.
21.
Rogers RW. Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: a revised theory of protection motivation. In: Cacioppo JR, Petty RE, editors. Social psychophysiology: a sourcebook. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1983. p. 153–76.
22.
Ajzen I. The theory of planned behaviour. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179–211.CrossRef
23.
Lippke S, Renneberg B. Theorien und Modelle des Gesundheitsverhaltens [Theories and models of health behavior]. In: B. Renneberg & P. Hammelstein (Eds.), Gesundheitspsychologie. Heidelberg: Springer; 2006:35–60.
24.
Steiner P, Atzmüller C. Experimentelle Vignettendesigns in faktoriellen Surveys. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. 2006;58(1):117–46.CrossRef
25.
Hechter M, Ranger-Moore J, Jasso G, Horne C. Do values matter? An analysis of advance directives for medical treatment. Eur Sociol Rev. 1999;15(4):405–30.CrossRef
26.
Wallander L. 25 years of factorial surveys in sociology: a review. Soc Sci Res. 2009;38(3):505–20.CrossRef
27.
Gross C, Kriwy P. Fairness Judgement on the allocation of organ donations. Results of a factorial survey. Gesundheitswesen. 2008;70(8/9):541–9.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Alexander CS, Becker HJ. The use of vignettes in survey research. Public Opin Q. 1978;42(1):93–104.CrossRef
29.
Brendel A, Spies C, Dierks C. Rechtlicher Anpassungsbedarf für diagnostische Lab-on-a-chip-Systeme. Medizinrecht. 2015;33(5):321–7.CrossRef
30.
Bier FF, Schumacher S. Biosensoren der Zukunft: Patientennahe in vitro-Diagnostik für personalisierte Medizin. Public Health Forum. 2011;19(1):26. e21-26.e24CrossRef
31.
Nussbeck G, Soltani N, Denecke K. Making knowledge on healthcare technologies understandable: an ontology for lab-on-a-chip systems. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:972.PubMed
32.
Auspurg K, Hinz T, Liebig S, Sauer C. Wie unplausibel darf es sein? Der Einfluss von Designmerkmalen auf das Antwortverhalten in Faktoriellen Surveys. In: Unsichere Zeiten: Herausforderungen gesellschaftlicher Transformationen. Volume 34. Edited by Soeffner H-G. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag; 2010.
33.
Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Generalized self-efficacy scale. In: Weinman J, Wright S, Johnston M, editors. Measures in health psychology: a user’s portfolio causal and control beliefs. Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON; 1995. p. 35–7.
34.
Renner B, Hahn A, Schwarzer R. Risiko und Gesundheitsverhalten. Dokumentation der Meßinstrumente des Forschungsprojekts “Berlin risk Appraisal and Health Motivation Study” (BRAHMS). [Risk and health behaviour. Documentation of the measuring instruments of the research project “Berlin risk Appraisal and Health Motivation Study” (BRAHMS).]. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin; 1996.
35.
IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. In. Armonk, NY, USA 2013
36.
Stata Corp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 11. College Station. TX, USA: StataCorp LP; 2013.
37.
Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A. Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata. College Station: Stata Press; 2005.
38.
Hox J. Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications, Second Edition. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis; 2010.
39.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Core Team; 2013.
40.
Cooke R, French DP. How well do the theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behaviour predict intentions and attendance at screening programmes? A meta-analysis. Psychol Health. 2008;23(7):745–65.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Milne SE, Orbell S. Can Protection Motivation Theory predict breast self-examination? In: Understanding and changing in health behaviour: From health beliefs to self-regulation. Volume 2. Edited by Abraham C, Conner M, Norman P. London, UK: Psychology Press; 2000:51–72.
42.
43.
44.
Metadata
Title
Psychological, situational and application-related determinants of the intention to self-test: a factorial survey among students
Authors
Pinar Kuecuekbalaban
Tim Rostalski
Silke Schmidt
Holger Muehlan
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2394-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Health Services Research 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Mobility as a predictor of all-cause mortality in older men and women: 11.8 year follow-up in the Tromsø study

Research article

Agency responses to a system-driven implementation of multiple evidence-based practices in children’s mental health services

Research article

Satisfaction of doctors with their training: evidence from UK

Study protocol

Addressing the gaps in diabetes care in first nations communities with the reorganizing the approach to diabetes through the application of registries (RADAR): the project protocol

Research article

Improving the knowledge of labour and delivery nurses in India: a randomized controlled trial of mentoring and case sheets in primary care centres

Research article

Geographic variation within the military health system