Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Original article
Qualitative analysis of the experiences of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men who use GetCheckedOnline.com: a comprehensive internet-based diagnostic service for HIV and other STIs
  1. Rod Eric Knight1,2,
  2. Cathy Chabot3,
  3. Anna Carson1,2,
  4. Kimberly Thomson3,4,5,
  5. Devon Haag4,
  6. Mark Gilbert3,4,
  7. Jean Shoveller3
  1. 1British Columbia Centre on Substance Use, Vancouver, Canada
  2. 2Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
  3. 3School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
  4. 4British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, Canada
  5. 5Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Rod Eric Knight, British Columbia Centre on Substance Use, Vancouver V6Z 2A9, Canada; bccsu-rk{at}bccsu.ubc.ca

Abstract

Objectives To describe the factors that influence gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men’s (gbMSM) experiences with GetCheckedOnline.com (GCO) in British Columbia (BC), Canada. GCO clients complete an internet-based risk assessment and print a laboratory test requisition form for HIV and other STIs to take to a private laboratory for diagnostic services.

Methods Drawing on a purposive stratified sampling framework, we conducted 37 in-depth semistructured interviews with gbMSM who had used GCO at least once between 2015 and 2017.

Results Participants expressed a preference for GCO (instead of clinic-based testing) because of convenience, privacy and control over specimen collection (specifically with doing one’s own throat or anal swab). Participants preferred receiving their results online via GCO compared with phone or email follow-up by clinic staff. GCO was viewed positively because it offers gbMSM living outside of urban city centres easy access to diagnostic services, including access to pooled nucleic acid amplification testing. Many participants also continued to positively view the clinic-based services available for gbMSM in their community. These services were frequently described as highly competent, tailored and comprehensive in responding to more complex needs. For example, attending a clinic was viewed as preferential to GCO in instances where there was a desire to access services addressing co-occurring health issues (eg, mental health; substance use disorders). Almost all of the participants anticipated using both GCO and clinic-based services in the future.

Conclusions gbMSM report positive experiences and perceptions of GCO; however, they do not view GCO as a panacea. The results of this study point to the need to ensure that a wide range of integrated service options (eg, online; clinic-based) are available to address the range of sexual health needs of gbMSM living in BC's diverse settings.

  • HIV testing
  • gay men
  • testing
  • user’s perspective
  • sexual health

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Jackie A Cassell

  • Contributors Conception and design of the study: JS, MG, RK and DH. Data collection: CC, AC, KT and RK. Data analysis and interpretation: RK, CC, AC, KT, DH, MG and JS. Drafting manuscript: RK, CC, AC, KT, DH, MG and JS.

  • Funding This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (POH-106440, HIM-145-373, PHE-114129; PHE-318068; CTW-155550). Knight is supported by a Scholar Award from the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval This study received institutional ethics approval from the University of British Columbia’s Behavioural Research Ethics Board (# H12-02408 and H16-00846) and UBC’s Clinical Research Ethics Board (# H15-00510).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement All relevant data are presented within the paper and are fully sufficient to replicate the study findings.

Linked Articles