Table 1

Overview of included studies

ServiceAuthor (year)Study typeStudy aimsDemographic characteristics captured
GenderAgeEthnicitySexual orientationIMD
eSexual Health Clinic (eSHC)Aicken et al 201851Qualitative interviewsTo understand use and experience of the eSHC to inform future evaluation and refinementBinary18–35✓✓–
Estcourt et al 201749Quasi-experimentalTo assess the safety and feasibility of eSHCBinary18+✓✓–
Gibbs et al 201838Mixed-methods evaluation of quasi-experimental studyTo evaluate the eSHC results service–––––
Freetest.meDolan and Rudisill 201439Quasi-experimentalTo explore the effect on chlamydia test return rates of non-cash financial incentives, and the influence of socioeconomic statusBinary16–24✓–Mean score
LetstalkaboutitGasmelsid et al 202134ObservationalTo determine whether online screening is accessible by those patients most at need by comparing the demographics and number of asymptomatic chlamydial infections detected online and in clinicBinary<25, 25+✓✓–**
National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP)Woodhall et al 20125ObservationalTo describe and evaluate access to the NCSP’s online chlamydia testing serviceBinary15–24✓–✓
North East Essex Primary Care Trust (PCT)Bracebridge et al 201240ObservationalTo quantify uptake and test-positivity rates, identify factors associated with screening and compare costs of the intervention with the NCSPBinary17–25✓–✓#
Saving LivesPage et al 201947ObservationalTo ascertain how DBS HIV kits compared with MT kits in this postal testing serviceFemale, male, transMedian 26✓✓–
Sexual Health London (SHL)Day et al 202050ObservationalTo report the rate of recent sexual assault disclosure among users of SHL, and identify the outcomes of their call-back discussionsFemale, male, trans or non-binary18–55✓✓–
Day et al 202143ObservationalTo assess the sexual health needs, sexual practices, STI/HIV positivity and satisfaction rates of trans and non-binary users of Sexual Health LondonFemale, male, trans, non-binary/gender fluid15–82✓––
Day et al 202048ObservationalTo report the safeguarding concerns and outcomes of those aged 16–17 years old accessing SHLFemale, male, trans or non-binary16–17✓✓–
Day et al 202161ObservationalTo identify the characteristics and transfer to care rates of those who have a reactive HIV test result via SHLBinary21–50✓✓–
SH:24Barnard et al 201832ObservationalTo compare the characteristics of e-STI service users with clinic users, and OPSS kit returners with non-returnersBinary16+✓✓✓
Barnard 2020 (Chapter 6)52Qualitative interviewsTo describe the experiences, barriers and facilitators of SH:24 in Lambeth and SouthwarkFemale, male, trans16–30✓✓–
Syred et al 201937ObservationalTo describe user choice of OPSS orders and diagnoses in a ‘choose to test’ interventionBinary16–24✓✓✓
Turner et al 201820ObservationalTo investigate the effect of decision-making on resource allocation in a clinic after the introduction of an e-STI service in Lambeth and SouthwarkBinary16+✓✓–
Turner et al 201933Observational and model generationTo establish cost-effectiveness of an OPSS service, and explore cost per diagnosis in different scenarios–––––
Wilson et al 201744ExperimentalTo assess the effectiveness of an OPSS service compared with face-to-face servicesFemale, male, trans16–30✓✓–
Wilson et al 201945Secondary data analysis of experimental studyTo examine the effect of an e-STI service on testing uptake on people who had never previously tested (never-testers)Female, male, trans16–30✓✓–
TakeATestUK.comPage et al 202141ObservationalTo ascertain how DBS HIV and syphilis kits compared with MT kits in this postal testing serviceFemale, male, transMean 27✓✓–
UmbrellaBanerjee et al 201835ObservationalTo evaluate the rates of uptake and return of OPSS kits and compare patient demographics and clinical outcomes in home and clinic testersFemale, male, trans16+✓✓–
Banerjee et al 202036ObservationalTo evaluate the uptake, return rate and new diagnosis rates of home-based testing in comparison with clinic-based testing for HIV, syphilis and hepatitis BFemale, male, trans16+ ✓ ✓–
Manavi and Hodson 201746ObservationalTo establish which factors influence return of OPSS kitsFemale, male, trans–––IMD rank

  • ** Unstated, but reported as no difference between groups # Bracebridge et al. 2012 have labelled IMD quintile 1 as least deprived and IMD quintile 5 as most deprived in their paper. This may be an error and makes this data difficult to interpret. The corresponding author has been contacted for clarification.

  • DBS, dried blood sample; IMD, Index of Multiple Deprivation; MT, mini-test; OPSS, online postal self-sampling.