Low uptake of COVID-19 lateral flow testing among university students: a mixed methods evaluation

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.07.20.21260836: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Informed consent was obtained.
    IRB: Ethical approval: Ethical approval was obtained from University of Bristol faculty ethics committee (Reference 115084).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Analyses were conducted in STATA 16.1.
    STATA
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Students were well informed about the limitations of tests, often describing test results as just one piece of information, and using them with caution to inform their behaviour [23]. Many students had done their own research, had discussions with their friends, family, tutors and lecturers to maximise their knowledge of testing. This highlights the need for improved communications from universities to enable students to make their own informed decisions. Indeed, recent research that has shown basic and simple messages may not be suitable for communicating complex information about how to behave during the pandemic [24] and students are likely to appreciate having the opportunity to access information about the sensitivity and specificity of the tests. Despite concerns that testing would increase risky contact, we did not find evidence to support this. Students were well informed about the limitations of the tests, and used them with caution to inform behavioural decisions. What this study adds: A key strength of this research is the use of a mixed methods approach. Additionally, though some other universities have evaluated their LFT programmes [25, 26] we are not aware of any reporting data on testing uptake and exploring demographic variations in uptake among the whole student body. This is a unique strength of our work provides crucial information to inform future university testing strategies. Our work identified several ways in which engagement may be enhanced. As many ...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.