Many of us have taken countless Rapid Antigen Tests (RATs) over the course of the pandemic. It has become a habit to test yourself at home.
However, the global market for medical tests sold directly online to the public is also growing. These are “direct-to-consumer” tests, which means you can get tested without seeing a doctor.
This may sound convenient, but as a recent study found, the benefits for most consumers are questionable.
What is direct-to-consumer testing?
Let's start with what isn't.
We are not talking about patients who are diagnosed with some disease and take tests to monitor themselves (e.g., finger-prick tests to monitor blood sugar levels in diabetics).
We're also not talking about the home test kits used for mass screenings such as RATs for coronavirus, or the “poo tests” sent to people over 50 to screen for bowel cancer.
Direct-to-consumer tests are products that are sold to people who are willing to pay, bypassing their primary care physician. These include hormone profiling tests, tests for thyroid disease, food sensitivity tests, and more.
Some direct-to-consumer tests allow you to complete the test at home, while self-collection laboratory tests provide equipment to collect the sample and send it to a laboratory. You can now also purchase laboratory pathology requests directly from companies without having to see a doctor.
What we did in our research
We searched (via Google) for direct-to-consumer products that were advertised for online sale in Australia between June and December 2021. We then assessed whether each test was likely to benefit those who use them, based on the scientific literature published on each test. Recommendation for or against its use from a professional medical institution.
We identified 103 different tests and 484 individual products ranging in price from AU$12.99 to AU$1,947.
We concluded that only 11% of these tests are likely to benefit most consumers. These included testing for sexually transmitted diseases, where social stigma may discourage testing in a clinic.
An additional 31% may benefit those at higher risk. For example, testing may be helpful for people who have symptoms of thyroid disease. However, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners does not recommend testing for thyroid disease in people without symptoms, as there is a lack of evidence of the benefits of identifying and treating people with early-stage thyroid disease. yeah.
Approximately 42% were commercial “health exams” such as hormone tests and nutritional status tests. Although these are legal tests that may be ordered by doctors or used in research under certain circumstances, their usefulness to consumers is limited.
Testing hormone or vitamin levels at a specific time is not very helpful in improving your health, especially since test results can vary depending on the time of day, month, or season.
Most worryingly, 17 per cent of the tests were completely bogus, not recommended by mainstream medical professionals. For example, hair analysis to assess food allergies is unproven and can lead to misdiagnosis and ineffective treatment.
More than half of the tests we looked at did not state that they offered pre-test or post-test consultations.
Available products are subject to change outside of the study period and do not include direct-to-consumer tests that are not advertised or cannot be purchased directly online, such as those offered at pharmacies or commercial clinics. not.
However, in Australia, ours is the first and only study that we are aware of that maps the scale and diversity of direct-to-consumer tests sold online.
Studies in other countries have similarly found a lack of evidence to support most direct-to-consumer tests.
4 Questions to Ask Before Buying a Test Online
Many direct-to-consumer tests have limited benefit and may even cause harm. Here are his four questions to ask yourself if you are considering purchasing medical tests online.
1. Will this test cause me to receive additional visits or treatment that I don't need?
Testing yourself may seem harmless (after all, it's just information), but unnecessary testing often uncovers problems that wouldn't otherwise exist.
For example, if you are tested for diabetes, your blood sugar levels may be found to be moderately high and you may be classified as “prediabetic.” However, the diagnosis is controversial, with many assuming that patients are made up of healthy people, many of whom do not develop diabetes.
2. Will my doctor recommend this test?
If you have worrying symptoms or risk factors, your doctor can recommend the best tests for you. Tests ordered by a GP are likely to be covered by Medicare and therefore cost significantly less than direct-to-consumer tests.
3. Is this a quality test?
A high-quality home self-test kit should exhibit high sensitivity (proportion of true cases correctly detected) and high specificity (proportion accurately excluding people who do not have the disease). These numbers should ideally be in the low 90s and clearly printed on the product packaging.
For tests analyzed in a lab, check to see if the lab is accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities. Avoid sending tests to overseas laboratories where Australian regulators are unable to control quality or protect samples and personal health information.
Four. Is this test really necessary?
There are many reasons why you might want information from a test, including peace of mind or just curiosity. But unless you have clear symptoms or risk factors, you may be wasting your money getting tested unnecessarily.
While it may seem like a good idea to have the consumer directly tested, in most cases it's better to put your dog to bed if you're feeling well and go to your GP if you have concerns. Probably.
Patti See, Senior Lecturer, Australian Center for Health Engagement, Evidence and Value, University of Wollongong. Fiona Stanaway, Associate Professor of Clinical Epidemiology at the University of Sydney.Katie Bell, Associate Professor of Clinical Epidemiology, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, and Stacey Carter, Professor and Director, Australian Center for Health Engagement Evidence and Values, University of Wollongong.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
