As PhD convener, it is my pleasure to be able to invite you to Liz Barnes's first annual review. This will take place per the invite attached.

A brief recap of the process. Over the course of their first year our PhD students are expected to produce a draft of a paper alongside ongoing training in Economics and Research methods. At the end of their first year, Students have their first milestone in their programme in the form of their annual review. This annual review is comprised of a public presentation to the division (and a formal closed doors review.) I strongly urge current and new PhD students to attend this presentation as it will help give them an idea of the process that they too will undertake.

Liz will be presenting on The Impact of STI Test Modality (in-clinic versus online postal self-sampling) and Funding Source Reminder on Valuation, Adherence intentions, and Preference for STI Tests: A UK experimental study

Abstract

People are increasingly able to test for a variety of Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) using ‘test-at-home’ kits technically known as online postal self-sampling (OPSS), in addition to being able to use services administered by healthcare professionals e.g., at a clinic or GP surgery. Whilst OPSS has been well received, particularly by younger people, there remain issues surrounding the responsible and appropriate use of both clinic and self-sample tests, with concerns about wastage and implications for poor health. Previous research indicates that in systems where health care is provided free-at-point-of-use (e.g., the National Health Service in the UK), the inclusion of a reminder that medical services are funded by the taxpayer can boost valuation of products and services, and improve adherence (e.g., intentions to follow instructions accompanying medications or services). Drawing on this approach, we employ an experimental design to examine whether test modality (in-clinic versus OPSS) and the inclusion (or not) of a reminder that the services are ‘Funded by the UK taxpayer’ on an STI test service website, impacts valuation of the service and adherence intentions with test requirements. Counter to previous findings, results indicate the reminder of the funding source did not influence outcomes. However, test modality was impactful, with in-clinic tests (versus OPSS) being valued more monetarily, but not subjectively. Participants also indicated greater preference (more likely to use), and greater adherence intentions (complete the testing process as recommended) for OPSS versus in-clinic tests. Findings offer insight into the role of test modality on STI testing valuation and adherence, whilst also highlighting potential limitations of using funding source disclosure to encourage more positive health attitudes and behaviours.

I hope to see you there!