Cross-sectional study examines barriers to STI self-collection kits in adolescents and young adults, suggesting design improvements.
Background: Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) disproportionately affect adolescents and young adults (AYAs), yet testing rates in this group remain low. STI self-collection kits may potentially increase testing uptake. We sought to characterize barriers to using self-collection kits among AYAs. Methods: This cross-sectional study examined preferences and barriers related to STI self-collection kits among 445 sexually active AYAs aged 15-24 years across high STI incidence counties in the United States (U.S.). Data was collected via social media recruitment and analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: The study revealed disparities in comfort levels regarding receiving STI self-collection kits at home and other household members seeing them. Most participants preferred their kit to be delivered to their home, though participants aged 15-19 years and AYAs with lower education preferred to pick it up from school. Discreet delivery was perceived as more feasible by participants aged 20-24 years, those who were employed, and those living in the southern U.S. Individuals with less than a high school education were less likely to feel comfortable self-collecting for STI testing. Participants favored written or video instructions for specimen collection and email or text message for results notification. Participants expressed a high likelihood of referring their sexual partners for testing and treatment. Conclusions: These findings underscore the importance of tailoring STI self-collection kit design and delivery to AYA subpopulations. Future research and programs should prioritize AYAs’ desires for discreet delivery, clear specimen self-collection instructions, and digital communication options to benefit and optimize STI testing for AYAs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rager et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: