Direct-to-consumer testing as consumer initiated testing: compromises to the testing process and opportunities for quality improvement

Direct-to-consumer testing (DTCT) refers to commercial laboratory tests initiated by laypersons without the involvement of healthcare professionals. As this market grows in size and variety of products, a clear definition of DTCT to ground the conceptualization of their harms and benefits is needed. We describe how three different modalities of DTCT (home self-testing, self-sampled tests, and direct access tests) present caveats to the traditional testing process ('brain-to-brain loop'), and how this might differ between medical vs. non-medical laboratories. We make recommendations for ways to improve quality and reduce errors with respect to DTCT. The potential benefits and harms of DTCT will invariably depend on the context and situation of individual consumers and the types of tests involved. Importantly, implications for both consumers and the healthcare system should be considered, such as the effects on improving health outcomes and reducing unnecessary testing and use of clinical resources. 'Consumer initiation' must be a central defining characteristic of DTCT, to clearly demarcate the key drawbacks as well as opportunities of this type of testing from a laboratory specialists' perspective. The concept of 'consumer initiated testing' should also help define DTCT regulation, and provide a locus of efforts to support consumers as the main decision-makers in the purchasing and conducting of these tests in the absence of clinician gatekeeping.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
Published
2024-08-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2024-0876
Citations
12
Primary Topic
Healthcare cost, quality, practices
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
10.19
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Direct-to-consumer testing as consumer initiated testing: compromises to the testing process and opportunities for quality improvement

Tomris Özben, Banu İşbilen Başok, Mario Plebani, Nathalie De Vos et al.
12 citations
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
Healthcare cost, quality, practices
10.19
article

Direct-to-consumer testing as consumer initiated testing: compromises to the testing process and opportunities for quality improvement

Tomris Özben, Banu İşbilen Başok, Mario Plebani, Nathalie De Vos, Sverre Sandberg, Matthias Orth, Jennifer J. Brady, Bernard Croal, Patti Shih, Mathias Karlsson, Piret Kedars, Marina Pijanovic, Jan Balla
article en
12 citations

Abstract

Direct-to-consumer testing (DTCT) refers to commercial laboratory tests initiated by laypersons without the involvement of healthcare professionals. As this market grows in size and variety of products, a clear definition of DTCT to ground the conceptualization of their harms and benefits is needed. We describe how three different modalities of DTCT (home self-testing, self-sampled tests, and direct access tests) present caveats to the traditional testing process ('brain-to-brain loop'), and how this might differ between medical vs. non-medical laboratories. We make recommendations for ways to improve quality and reduce errors with respect to DTCT. The potential benefits and harms of DTCT will invariably depend on the context and situation of individual consumers and the types of tests involved. Importantly, implications for both consumers and the healthcare system should be considered, such as the effects on improving health outcomes and reducing unnecessary testing and use of clinical resources. 'Consumer initiation' must be a central defining characteristic of DTCT, to clearly demarcate the key drawbacks as well as opportunities of this type of testing from a laboratory specialists' perspective. The concept of 'consumer initiated testing' should also help define DTCT regulation, and provide a locus of efforts to support consumers as the main decision-makers in the purchasing and conducting of these tests in the absence of clinician gatekeeping.

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)Vol. 63(2)
University College Dublin (IE), University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (IT), Uppsala University (SE), Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE), Izmir University (TR), University of Padua (IT), University of Health Science (KH), Akdeniz University (TR), University of Wollongong (AU), Heidelberg University (DE), Aberdeen Royal Infirmary (GB), University Hospital Heidelberg (DE), Children's Health Ireland at Crumlin (IE), NHS Grampian (GB), East Tallinn Central Hospital (EE), Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi (TR), Haraldsplass Diakonale Sykehus (NO), Kliniken Schmieder (DE), Azienda Ospedale - Università Padova (IT), University of Bergen (NO)
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Healthcare cost, quality, practices
10.19
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.