Human Factors Evaluation and Usability Validation of Prototype Drink Spiking Test Kits for Nightlife Settings

Usability Validation of Drink Spiking Test Strip

Annastasia R. Beal¹†*, Bryce Batcheller²†, Patrick Chu³, Shane K. M. Wood⁴, Troy Wise², Max Jiang⁵

¹Harm Reduction Circle, Irvine, California, USA

²WiseBatch LLC, Costa Mesa, California, USA

³Clinical Research Organization (CRO), University of California, Irvine, USA

⁴Fentanyl Solution, Newport Beach, California, USA

⁵Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

*Corresponding author: annastasia@harmreductioncircle.org

†These authors contributed equally to this work.

Human Factors Evaluation and Usability Validation of Prototype Drink Spiking Test Kits for Nightlife Settings

Abstract

Drink spiking involving substances such as gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB), ketamine, and benzodiazepines presents a growing threat to public safety, particularly in nightlife and social settings. This study evaluates the usability and effectiveness of a prototype drink spiking test kit by examining its Quick Reference Guide (QRG) through a human factors engineering lens. Conducted in real-world bar environments, 50 participants under moderate alcohol influence used the product under single-blind conditions. Moderators observed performance, recorded procedural adherence, and collected participant feedback via structured surveys. The results showed a 90% accuracy rate in interpreting test results, indicating strong user comprehension and successful interaction with the QRG. These findings support the readiness of the test kit for public use and highlight the importance of human-centered design in advancing harm reduction tools for nightlife safety and drug-facilitated assault prevention. 

Keywords: GHB testing; drink spiking prevention; harm reduction; human factors engineering; usability validation

Subject Classification Codes: Health and Safety (e.g., 62P10); Public Health (e.g., 91C44); Addiction and Substance Use (e.g., 92E70).

Introduction

Drug-facilitated sexual assault (DFSA) remains a persistent and underreported public health concern, with thousands of suspected cases occurring annually across nightlife venues, festivals, and college campuses. A range of substances are commonly associated with DFSA incidents, including gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB), ketamine, flunitrazepam (Rohypnol), and alprazolam (Xanax). These drugs are often favored by perpetrators due to their sedative effects, rapid onset, and ability to impair memory and consciousness when surreptitiously added to drinks [1]. GHB’s rapid onset, amnestic effects, and capacity to induce unconsciousness render it particularly dangerous, especially in social environments where alcohol is consumed and symptoms may be misinterpreted as intoxication [2,3].

Internationally, reports of suspected drink spiking incidents involving GHB, ketamine, and benzodiazepines have increased significantly in recent years across the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia [4]. Despite heightened awareness and community concern, the availability of effective, real-time prevention tools remains limited. Post-incident toxicology testing remains the primary method of detection for law enforcement and healthcare providers, but these tests offer no preventive utility, especially given GHB’s rapid metabolism and short detection window [5].

The Role and Limitations of Current Drink Spiking Detection Tools

Several commercial products on the market claim to detect GHB or other sedatives in beverages, yet few have undergone rigorous, independent validation in real-world settings. Many of these tests are poorly optimized for public use—particularly in nightlife environments, where low lighting, time constraints, and alcohol intoxication create unique usability challenges. Common issues include unclear or overly complex instructions, ambiguous result interpretation, and limited reliability across diverse drink types [6].

Human Factors Engineering (HFE)—a discipline focused on optimizing the interaction between people and tools—offers a practical framework for improving the design and implementation of drug checking and DFSA prevention technologies. Tools developed or refined through HFE principles are more likely to be user-friendly, effective under stress or impairment, and trusted by those at risk [7].

Legislative Response: California Assembly Bill 1013

In direct response to growing public concern over drugging incidents in nightlife spaces, California enacted Assembly Bill 1013 (AB 1013), which took effect on July 1, 2024. The law requires all bars and nightclubs with a Type 48 alcohol license to make drink spiking test kits available to patrons—either for free or at a low cost. These venues must also prominently display signage alerting customers to the availability of these tools [8]. AB 1013 aims to empower individuals to detect the presence of substances such as GHB, ketamine, and benzodiazepines before harm occurs. However, as of the law’s implementation, no test kits currently on the market have undergone formal field validation or usability testing that meets the practical and behavioral expectations outlined in the legislation.

Study Objective and Design Overview

In response to the growing need for validated harm reduction tools to detect substances commonly associated with drug-facilitated sexual assault (DFSA), this study conducted a human factors evaluation of a prototype drink spiking test kit under simulated real-world conditions. The primary objective was to assess the usability and instructional clarity of the kit’s Quick Reference Guide (QRG) when deployed in active nightlife environments.

Testing was carried out in bar settings with participants under moderate alcohol influence to replicate the context in which such kits are most likely to be used. The study aimed to evaluate whether individuals could independently complete the testing procedure, correctly interpret results, and provide informed feedback on their experience.

Primary outcome measures included:

• Accuracy of result interpretation (agreeableness percentage)

• Completion time

• User satisfaction with instructional clarity and ease of use

By grounding the evaluation in actual nightlife conditions and aligning the design with AB 1013’s intended function, this research contributes needed evidence for DFSA prevention, supports harm reduction innovation, and informs effective public health implementation of new safety mandates.

Methods

Study Design and Setting

This validation study was conducted in two distinct bar venues located along Main Street in Huntington Beach, California, a high-density nightlife corridor adjacent to the Huntington Beach Pier. The area was selected to replicate real-world conditions under which drink spiking test kits are most likely to be used.

A total of 50 adult participants (aged 21 and older) were enrolled under a single-blind, randomized protocol. To simulate typical nightlife behavior and assess usability under realistic conditions, participants were encouraged to have consumed at least one alcoholic beverage prior to participation. All participants were compensated for their time with one alcoholic beverage of their choice, provided by the venue either before or after test administration. Participants were not informed whether they received a positive or negative control vial; all vials were pre-coded and visually indistinguishable. Each test was conducted under one-on-one supervision by a trained moderator, who, while unblinded to the control assignment, observed the procedure and recorded the participant’s result interpretation for accuracy assessment.

Participants were recruited from two distinct nightlife venues to introduce ecological variability:

• Location 1 – Second Floor Bar (Nightclub Setting): The first 25 participants were enrolled and tested in a high-stimulation environment characterized by amplified music, active dancing, and elevated patron density. The venue featured low ambient lighting with intermittent color effects and movement-oriented distractions typical of nightclub settings. Due to high ambient noise levels, verbal communication between moderators and participants was limited, with reliance on written materials and gestures. This site was selected to assess usability under high-distraction, socially dynamic conditions reflective of crowded nightlife spaces.

• Location 2 – Be Good Restaurant and Experience (Lounge Setting): The remaining 25 participants were enrolled at a more relaxed and controlled venue. Lighting conditions were steady and adequate for reading and test interpretation, and music played at a lower, conversational volume. The environment supported seated interaction with minimal crowding and limited visual or auditory distractions. This site offered an ideal context to evaluate test usability in lower-stimulation bar and lounge environments where patrons may more easily engage with harm reduction tools.

By enrolling equal numbers of participants in each setting, this study captured a wide range of environmental factors likely to impact real-world use of drink spiking test kits. This design also supports generalizability of findings across the spectrum of venue types included in the scope of California Assembly Bill 1013 (AB 1013).

Test Kit Evaluated

The test strip evaluated in this study is a prototype drink spiking detection kit that is currently in development and not yet commercially available. This study represents the initial human factors validation aimed at determining its usability and feasibility for deployment in nightlife settings. Each test included a single-use test strip and an accompanying Quick Reference Guide (QRG).

	Figure 2: Back of the QRG illustrating step-by-step instructions for using the GHB test kit.
Figure 1: Front of the QRG showing positive, negative, and invalid result examples.

Positive and Negative Controls

Each participant was randomly assigned one control vial and remained blinded to its contents. All vials were labeled with randomized codes and stored at room temperature. To simulate real-use conditions without using controlled substances, two types of blinded control vials were prepared:

• Positive Control: Contained a Vitamin C solution with food coloring to mimic a spiked drink.

• Negative Control: Contained deionized water with similar food coloring to mimic an unadulterated beverage.

Sample Preparation

Control vials were prepared in visually identical containers to prevent participant bias and ensure blinding. Vials were distributed in dim lighting to reflect typical nightlife settings. While moderators were informed of the control type for each participant to record result accuracy, participants themselves remained blinded throughout the testing process.

Experimental Procedures

Each participant was paired one-on-one with a trained moderator who guided them through the study protocol. The moderator began by providing a concise verbal overview of the study and distributed a printed copy of the Quick Reference Guide (QRG), a single-use test strip, and a pre-assigned control vial (either positive or negative).

Participants were instructed to independently perform the test using only the provided materials. No hands-on assistance was offered during the testing process to maintain the integrity of the human factors evaluation. The moderators observed each participant’s actions and documented their adherence to the procedural steps outlined in the QRG.

Upon completing the test, participants verbally reported their interpretation of the result (positive, negative, or unclear). The moderators documented each response and verified its accuracy against the known contents of the control vial. Following the verbal result, participants completed a brief post-test survey that was recorded. Finally, participants completed a brief post-test survey evaluating:

• Clarity of the Quick Reference Guide (QRG)

• Confidence in interpreting the result

• Ease of use of the test kit

• Estimated time to complete the test

• Overall satisfaction with the testing process

Validation Metrics

After the data was collected, the following metrics were used to evaluate usability and effectiveness of the test:

• Accuracy (Agreeableness Percentage): Proportion of participants who correctly identified their blinded control vial result.

• Completion Time: Self-reported time from start to result interpretation.

• Instructional Usability: Participant ratings on ease of use and clarity of QRG on a Likert scale.

Statistical Analysis

All data were analyzed descriptively. Accuracy was calculated as the percentage of correct verbal interpretations compared to the known control assignments. Incorrect responses were coded as disagreements. Completion times were averaged across participants, and survey feedback was summarized using frequencies and descriptive statistics. No inferential statistical tests were performed, as this was a single-arm human factors validation study rather than a comparative efficacy trial.

Results

Participant Demographics Performance Metrics

A total of 50 participants were enrolled in this study, all of whom were 21 years of age or older. The mean age was 29.2 years, with a range from 21 to 49 years. Age groups were distributed as follows:

• 21–24 years: 8 participants (16%)

• 25–29 years: 23 participants (46%)

• 30–34 years: 11 participants (22%)

• 35–39 years: 4 participants (8%)

• 40–44 years: 3 participants (6%)

• 45–49 years: 1 participant (2%)

In terms of gender:

• 62% (n = 31) identified as male

• 38% (n = 19) identified as female

Participants were drawn from two nightlife venues in Huntington Beach and reflect a cross-section of typical nightlife patrons. Equal numbers were enrolled from a high-stimulation nightclub setting and a more relaxed lounge venue to ensure ecological diversity in testing conditions.mandates.

Test Performance Metrics

Each participant used one blinded control vial (either positive or negative) and independently conducted the test using only the Quick Reference Guide (QRG) provided. All tests were observed by a moderator, who recorded each participant’s interpretation and verified its accuracy.

• Correct Interpretations: 45/50 participants (90%) accurately identified the result of their assigned control vial.

• Incorrect Interpretations: 5/50 participants (10%) misinterpreted the test result—three false negatives and two false positives.

• 2 false negatives: The participant reported a negative result, but the control vial was positive.

• 2 false positives: The participant reported a positive result, but the control vial was negative.

• 1 invalid result: The participant either misused the strip or failed to complete the test, and the result could not be interpreted.

For statistical purposes, the invalid test was counted as incorrect in the overall accuracy calculation. This misclassification analysis underscores the kit’s high rate of accuracy while identifying specific types of user error that may benefit from minor instructional refinements.

Instructional Usability Feedback

Participants provided feedback on their experience using the test kit, specifically focusing on the clarity and effectiveness of the QRG.

• Instructional Clarity: 90% of participants reported that the instructions were clear and easy to follow.

• Confidence in Interpretation: 88% of participants reported feeling confident in their interpretation of the test result.

• Ease of Use: 92% rated the overall test process as “easy” or “very easy” to complete without assistance.

• Lighting and Environment: 84% stated that the testing process was manageable even under low-light conditions typical of nightlife venues.

Contextual and Behavioral Insights from Participants

In addition to evaluating the usability and accuracy of the drink spiking test kit, this study collected supplementary data on participants’ lived experiences with drink spiking, their perceptions of personal and peer risk, and their attitudes toward harm reduction interventions in nightlife settings.

As part of the post-test survey, participants were asked a series of questions regarding their personal experiences, peer observations, and attitudes related to drink spiking, harm reduction practices, and nightlife safety. The questions included:

• 1. Have you ever personally experienced a situation where your drink was spiked or you were given drugs without your consent in a social setting?

• 1a. If yes, what actions did you take in response to that incident?

• 1b. If yes, do you know which substance(s) may have been used in that situation?

• 2. Do you personally know someone who has had their drink spiked or who has been drugged without their consent in a social setting?

• 2a. If yes, what actions did that person take in response?

• 2b. If yes, do you know which substance(s) may have been used in that situation involving someone you know?

• 3. Prior to today, had you ever used a drink spiking test before this study?

• 3a. If yes, do you believe that having access to a drink spiking test at the time of the incident could have prevented harm or changed the outcome?

• 4. On a scale of 1 to 5, how important do you believe it is for bars and nightclubs to offer drink spiking test kits to their patrons?

• 5. Which of the following actions do you personally take to prevent your drink from being spiked in social settings?

• Did nothing at the time

• I'm not sure / I don't remember

• Told friends or family

• Left the venue immediately

• Alerted the venue staff or management

• Sought medical attention

• Left the venue immediately, Sought medical attention, Alerted the venue staff or management

• Left the venue immediately, Sought medical attention, Told friends or family

• Na (likely used by participants who didn't skip the question but had nothing to report—can be excluded or clarified as "Not applicable")

• 6. On a scale of 1 to 5, how concerned are you about the risk of drink spiking in nightlife or social settings?

Participants’ responses revealed a layered understanding of personal safety in nightlife settings. Twelve percent (n = 6) reported having personally experienced drink spiking or suspected drugging, while an additional 20% (n = 10) said they knew someone who had. Among those with direct or peer experience, commonly suspected substances included benzodiazepines and other unknown sedatives. Reported actions included seeking medical attention, alerting venue staff, telling friends or family, and leaving the venue immediately. A small number of respondents stated that no action was taken or that the incident was not clearly remembered.

Only 4% (n = 2) of participants had ever used a drink spiking test prior to the study. However, of those who had experienced or witnessed an incident, 10 individuals believed that having access to a test kit at the time could have prevented harm or changed the outcome. Another 8 respondents disagreed, and the remaining participants did not answer the question.

Attitudinal responses underscored widespread support for harm reduction strategies. Nearly half of participants (48%) rated the availability of test kits in nightlife venues as “very important,” with additional support expressed by those who rated it a 3 or 4 on the 5-point scale. Only one participant indicated that they did not view test kit availability as important.

When asked about their level of concern regarding drink spiking, responses varied. Sixteen percent (n = 8) rated their concern at the highest level (5 out of 5), while 26% (n = 13) selected a moderate concern level (3 out of 5), and 20% (n = 10) reported little to no concern (1 out of 5).

Participants also reported using a range of proactive drink safety strategies, including covering drinks, monitoring them continuously, declining drinks from unknown individuals, and staying close to trusted friends. These findings suggest that while many participants are already engaging in some degree of harm reduction, they still recognize a gap in available tools—particularly for real-time verification in high-risk environments.

The contextual and behavioral data gathered through this study demonstrate that experiences with drink spiking—whether personal or observed—are not uncommon. The responses also indicate a strong desire for prevention tools and support the need for widespread distribution of validated test kits alongside public education campaigns. These insights reinforce the urgency of policy implementation under AB 1013 and the importance of centering community voices in designing nightlife safety strategies.

Discussion

This validation study demonstrated that participants were able to accurately use and interpret the drink spiking test kit in nightlife settings under conditions of moderate alcohol influence. Of the 50 individuals enrolled, 90% correctly identified whether their drink sample had been spiked or not, indicating strong real-world performance. Additionally, the majority of participants completed the test within 10 minutes and rated the instructional materials as clear and easy to follow.

The implications for implementation in public nightlife environments are substantial. As California Assembly Bill 1013 (AB 1013) mandates that bars and nightclubs provide drink spiking test kits to patrons, it is essential that such tools be both intuitive and effective under typical use conditions. This study offers the first known field-based evidence that a commercially available drink spiking test kit meets these criteria. Unlike unvalidated products currently marketed online, the evaluated kit demonstrated high usability and minimal error rates even when used by individuals under the influence of alcohol—a critical factor in DFSA prevention.

Importantly, this study also assessed the role of Human Factors Engineering (HFE) in improving harm reduction tools. The test kit’s Quick Reference Guide (QRG) demonstrated its user-friendliness and reliability across various participants and bar settings. This supports the growing consensus that design considerations—such as visual simplicity, clear labeling, and procedural brevity—play a critical role in the success of point-of-use harm reduction technologies.

Participant feedback also highlights broader public health concerns and the need for supportive infrastructure surrounding test kit deployment. Contextual data from the post-test survey revealed that 12% of participants had experienced suspected drugging firsthand, while 20% knew someone who had. Among this subgroup, many believed that having access to a test kit at the time could have changed the outcome, suggesting an unmet need for both preventive tools and post-incident empowerment. Moreover, nearly half of all participants rated the availability of drink spiking tests in bars and nightclubs as “very important,” indicating widespread community support for these tools when implemented responsibly.

Despite limited prior exposure to such technologies—only 4% had used a drink spiking test before—the strong usability outcomes and high levels of reported confidence suggest that barriers to adoption may be relatively low if access is streamlined and awareness is increased. Importantly, participants also described their own proactive safety behaviors, such as covering drinks and traveling in groups, reinforcing the idea that drug checking kits should be integrated into a broader culture of harm reduction rather than positioned as a standalone solution.

Participant feedback also highlights broader public health concerns and the need for supportive infrastructure surrounding test kit deployment. Contextual data from the post-test survey revealed that 12% of participants had experienced suspected drugging firsthand, while 20% knew someone who had. Among this subgroup, many believed that having access to a test kit at the time could have changed the outcome, suggesting an unmet need for both preventive tools and post-incident empowerment. Moreover, nearly half of all participants rated the availability of drink spiking tests in bars and nightclubs as “very important,” indicating widespread community support for these tools when implemented responsibly.

Despite limited prior exposure to such technologies—only 4% had used a drink spiking test before—the strong usability outcomes and high levels of reported confidence suggest that barriers to adoption may be relatively low if access is streamlined and awareness is increased. Importantly, participants also described their own proactive safety behaviors, such as covering drinks and traveling in groups, reinforcing the idea that drug checking kits should be integrated into a broader culture of harm reduction rather than positioned as a standalone solution.

The success of this prototype also reinforces the value of applying Human Factors Engineering (HFE) principles to the design of harm reduction tools. The test kit’s QRG enabled consistent, independent use by participants in both high-stimulation nightclub settings and lower-distraction bar environments. This indicates a high degree of environmental adaptability and suggests that similar tools could be rolled out in a wide range of nightlife venues without the need for on-site facilitation or training.

Taken together, the study’s findings emphasize that validated drug checking tools have the potential to significantly enhance safety, agency, and prevention in nightlife spaces—particularly when paired with clear instructions, trusted branding, and a supportive policy framework. As bars and nightlife venues seek to comply with AB 1013, test kits validated under real-world conditions will be essential to ensure both compliance and community impact. This usability study provides early but essential evidence that such products can function effectively in practice, thereby advancing public safety and supporting DFSA prevention in alignment with state-level harm reduction mandates.

Limitations and Future Directions

This validation study was designed to assess usability under realistic nightlife conditions; however, several limitations should be acknowledged. Each participant completed only one test without replicate trials, limiting the ability to assess intra-user consistency or test-retest reliability. The participant pool, while diverse in gender and age, was geographically limited to two nightlife venues in Huntington Beach, California, which may affect the generalizability of findings to other settings, populations, or cultural environments.

Additionally, all results were based on visual interpretation of colorimetric outcomes under ambient lighting conditions typical of nightlife environments. No digital aids or instrument-based verification was used to confirm user interpretation. While this approach aligns with real-world use, it also introduces the possibility of subjective variability in result reading.

Future research should expand on this work by incorporating a broader geographic sample and increasing demographic diversity, including individuals with varying levels of alcohol consumption or cognitive impairment. Replicate trials and longitudinal usability assessments may provide insight into how familiarity with the test impacts performance over time. Furthermore, integration with smartphone-based interpretation tools may reduce misinterpretation and increase confidence in results, particularly under low-light conditions. Comparative studies involving test kits for other DFSA-associated substances (e.g., ketamine, benzodiazepines) would also help establish a broader evidence base for policy implementation under AB 1013 and similar mandates.

Ethical Approval

This study involved no clinical interventions, medical procedures, or collection of personal health information and was therefore exempt from Institutional Review Board (IRB) review. All participants were fully informed of the purpose, procedures, and potential risks of the study prior to participation. Written informed consent was obtained. All study activities adhered to the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki, including voluntary participation, anonymity, and the right to withdraw at any time.

Data Availability

All data supporting the results are available within the manuscript or upon request.

Funding 

This independent validation was conducted by Harm Reduction Circle without financial support from product manufacturers or external agencies.

Authors' Contribution 

A.R.B.¹ and S.K.M.W.⁴ led the study design, protocol development, site coordination, data analysis, and manuscript drafting. B.B.² contributed to the development of the study framework, drawing on product knowledge to inform test kit application and field deployment strategies. P.C.³ provided scientific oversight and supported methodological alignment with usability testing standards. S.K.M.W.⁴ and T.W.² offered operational and logistical support, including coordination with venues and oversight of field moderators to ensure consistent delivery of participant instructions. M.J.⁵ documented the testing process and developed the accompanying visual supplementary materials.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no financial conflicts of interest. WiseBatch LLC, the manufacturer of the test kit used in this study, contributed to study design by advising on real-world product usage and supported field operations by ensuring that moderators followed standardized protocols when providing instructions to participants. However, WiseBatch was not involved in participant interactions, survey administration, or data analysis. All data interpretation and manuscript preparation were conducted independently by the research team.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their heartfelt gratitude to the staff and management of Be Good Restaurant and Experience, and Second Floor Bar in Huntington Beach, California, for their unwavering generosity in hosting this field study. Their exceptional cooperation and flexibility were instrumental in creating authentic nightlife environments that could be effectively validated in real-world scenarios. We are particularly indebted to the 50 participants who graciously gave their time, actively participated, and provided invaluable, honest feedback. Their contributions were pivotal in making this research a resounding success.

We are grateful to Patrick Chu and the CRO for generously providing the drink spiking test kit for this independent evaluation. Patrick’s scientific guidance during study planning and protocol integrity was instrumental. WiseBatch LLC played a crucial role in supporting the study logistics and ensuring that the test kits were effectively applied in real-world settings. Their valuable input on product handling and moderator protocol helped align the testing process with the intended user experience while maintaining strict data separation and analysis.

Max Jiang deserves special recognition for capturing high-quality fieldwork photos that illustrated the practical application of the test kits in a nightlife context. We thank Harm Reduction Circle and Fentanyl Solution for their unwavering support in ensuring the research aligned with accessibility, dignity, and evidence-based prevention principles. 

Supplementary Materials

Table 1. Participant Testing Outcomes by Vial Assignment and Result Interpretation

Caption: This table summarizes participant performance during the usability validation study, indicating whether each test was completed and whether the verbal interpretation of the result aligned with the known control vial contents.

References

[1] National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2020, March). Drug-facilitated sexual assault. https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/drug-facilitated-sexual-assault

[2] U.S. Department of Justice. (2017). A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations. https://www.justice.gov/ovw/file/1049971/download

[3] European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. (2022). GHB and its precursors in Europe. https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-profiles/ghb_en

[4] Office for National Statistics. (2022, December). Drug-related sexual assault in the UK: An overview. https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/drugrelatedsexualassaultuk

[5] Mooney, T., & Nolan, S. (2021). GHB: Clinical features, toxicity, and management. BMJ Case Reports, 14(6), e242539. https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2021-242539

[6] Strang, J., McDonald, R., Alqurshi, A., & Taylor, D. (2023). Evaluating drug checking technologies: Usability, accuracy, and public health impact. International Journal of Drug Policy, 117, 104013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2023.104013

[7] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2016, February). Guidance for Industry: Human Factors and Usability Engineering for Medical Devices. https://www.fda.gov/media/80481/download

[8] California Legislative Information. (2023). Assembly Bill No. 1013—Alcoholic beverages: testing kits. Chapter 257. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1013