Direct-to-consumer tests advertised online in Australia and their implications for medical overuse: systematic online review and a typology of clinical utility.

decision making health services accessibility health services administration & management pathology

Journal

BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
27 Dec 2023
Historique:
medline: 28 12 2023
pubmed: 28 12 2023
entrez: 27 12 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The objective of this study is to map the range and variety of direct-to-consumer (DTC) tests advertised online in Australia and analyse their potential clinical utility and implications for medical overuse. Systematic online search of DTC test products in Google and Google Shopping. DTC test advertisements data were collected and analysed to develop a typology of potential clinical utility of the tests at population level, assessing their potential benefits and harms using available evidence, informed by concepts of medical overuse. We identified 484 DTC tests (103 unique products), ranging from $A12.99 to $A1947 in cost (mean $A197.83; median $A148.50). Using our typology, we assigned the tests into one of four categories: tests with potential clinical utility (10.7%); tests with limited clinical utility (30.6%); non-evidence-based commercial 'health checks' (41.9%); and tests whose methods and/or target conditions are not recognised by the general medical community (16.7%). Of the products identified, 56% did not state that they offered pretest or post-test consultation, and 51% did not report analytical performance of the test or laboratory accreditation. This first-in-Australia study shows most DTC tests sold online have low potential clinical utility, with healthy consumers constituting the main target market. Harms may be caused by overdiagnosis, high rates of false positives and treatment decisions led by non-evidence-based tests, as well as financial costs of unnecessary and inappropriate testing. Regulatory mechanisms should demand a higher standard of evidence of clinical utility and efficacy for DTC tests. Better transparency and reporting of health outcomes, and the development of decision-support resources for consumers are needed.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38151277
pii: bmjopen-2023-074205
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-074205
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e074205

Informations de copyright

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: None declared.

Auteurs

Patti Shih (P)

School of Health & Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia pshih@uow.edu.au.

Pauline Ding (P)

School of Mathematics and Applied Statistics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.

Stacy M Carter (SM)

School of Health & Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.

Fiona Stanaway (F)

School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Andrea R Horvath (AR)

NSW Health Pathology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia.

Daman Langguth (D)

Sullivan Nicolaides Pathology, Wesley Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Mirette Saad (M)

Australian Clinical Labs, Victorian Central Laboratory Headquarters, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.

Andrew St John (A)

Drajon Health, Toodyay, Western Australia, Australia.

Katy Bell (K)

School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Classifications MeSH