Cargando…

Self-testing for pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES: Urine pregnancy tests are often inaccessible in low-income settings. Expanded provision of home pregnancy testing could support self-care options for sexual and reproductive health and rights. We conducted a systematic review of pregnancy self-testing effectiveness, values and preference...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kennedy, Caitlin E, Yeh, Ping Teresa, Gholbzouri, Karima, Narasimhan, Manjulaa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8886405/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35228285
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054120
_version_ 1784660657095835648
author Kennedy, Caitlin E
Yeh, Ping Teresa
Gholbzouri, Karima
Narasimhan, Manjulaa
author_facet Kennedy, Caitlin E
Yeh, Ping Teresa
Gholbzouri, Karima
Narasimhan, Manjulaa
author_sort Kennedy, Caitlin E
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Urine pregnancy tests are often inaccessible in low-income settings. Expanded provision of home pregnancy testing could support self-care options for sexual and reproductive health and rights. We conducted a systematic review of pregnancy self-testing effectiveness, values and preferences and cost. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS and EMBASE and four trial registries were searched through 2 November 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included trials and observational studies that compared urine self-testing for pregnancy to health worker-led pregnancy testing on effectiveness outcomes; quantitative and qualitative studies describing values and preferences of end users and health workers and costs of pregnancy self-testing. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers used standardised methods to search, screen and code included studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration and Evidence Project tools. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects models. Findings were summarised in GRADE evidence profiles and synthesised qualitatively. RESULTS: For effectiveness, four randomised trials following 5493 individuals after medical abortion showed no difference or improvements in loss to follow-up with home pregnancy self-testing compared with return clinic visits. One additional trial of community health workers offering home pregnancy tests showed a significant increase in pregnancy knowledge and antenatal counselling among 506 clients. Eighteen diverse values and preferences studies found support for pregnancy self-testing because of quick results, convenience, confidentiality/privacy, cost and accuracy. Most individuals receiving pregnancy self-tests for postabortion home management preferred this option. No studies reported cost data. CONCLUSION: Pregnancy self-testing is acceptable and valued by end users. Effectiveness data come mostly from articles on postabortion care, and cost data are lacking. Greater availability of pregnancy self-tests, including in postabortion care and CHW programs, may lead to improved health outcomes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021231656.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8886405
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88864052022-03-17 Self-testing for pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Kennedy, Caitlin E Yeh, Ping Teresa Gholbzouri, Karima Narasimhan, Manjulaa BMJ Open Public Health OBJECTIVES: Urine pregnancy tests are often inaccessible in low-income settings. Expanded provision of home pregnancy testing could support self-care options for sexual and reproductive health and rights. We conducted a systematic review of pregnancy self-testing effectiveness, values and preferences and cost. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS and EMBASE and four trial registries were searched through 2 November 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included trials and observational studies that compared urine self-testing for pregnancy to health worker-led pregnancy testing on effectiveness outcomes; quantitative and qualitative studies describing values and preferences of end users and health workers and costs of pregnancy self-testing. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers used standardised methods to search, screen and code included studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration and Evidence Project tools. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects models. Findings were summarised in GRADE evidence profiles and synthesised qualitatively. RESULTS: For effectiveness, four randomised trials following 5493 individuals after medical abortion showed no difference or improvements in loss to follow-up with home pregnancy self-testing compared with return clinic visits. One additional trial of community health workers offering home pregnancy tests showed a significant increase in pregnancy knowledge and antenatal counselling among 506 clients. Eighteen diverse values and preferences studies found support for pregnancy self-testing because of quick results, convenience, confidentiality/privacy, cost and accuracy. Most individuals receiving pregnancy self-tests for postabortion home management preferred this option. No studies reported cost data. CONCLUSION: Pregnancy self-testing is acceptable and valued by end users. Effectiveness data come mostly from articles on postabortion care, and cost data are lacking. Greater availability of pregnancy self-tests, including in postabortion care and CHW programs, may lead to improved health outcomes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021231656. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-02-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8886405/ /pubmed/35228285 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054120 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Public Health
Kennedy, Caitlin E
Yeh, Ping Teresa
Gholbzouri, Karima
Narasimhan, Manjulaa
Self-testing for pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Self-testing for pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Self-testing for pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Self-testing for pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Self-testing for pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Self-testing for pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort self-testing for pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8886405/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35228285
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054120
work_keys_str_mv AT kennedycaitline selftestingforpregnancyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yehpingteresa selftestingforpregnancyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT gholbzourikarima selftestingforpregnancyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT narasimhanmanjulaa selftestingforpregnancyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis