Behavioural barriers to COVID-19 testing in Australia

  1. Carissa Bonner
  2. Carys Batcup
  3. Julie Ayre
  4. Kristen Pickles
  5. Rachael Dodd
  6. Tessa Copp
  7. Samuel Cornell
  8. Erin Cvejic
  9. Thomas Dakin
  10. Jennifer Isautier
  11. Brooke Nickel
  12. Kirsten McCaffery

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

The current suppression strategy for COVID-19 in Australia is dependent on people getting tested and self-isolating while they have COVID-19 symptoms. However, there is very little research on the behaviours and behavioural barriers involved in getting tested, both in Australia and worldwide, despite there being some evidence that these barriers do exist.

Methods

The Sydney Health Literacy Lab (SHeLL) has been conducting a national longitudinal survey in Australia since April 2020. A list of testing barriers was included in Wave 3 in June 2020 (n=1369), along with intentions to test and self-isolate if symptomatic. Open responses were also collected. The test barriers identified were categorised using the COM-B framework.

Results

Only 49% of people strongly agreed they would get tested if they had COVID-19 symptoms, but most people agreed to some extent that they would get tested (96%). The most common barriers selected from the list provided were that testing is painful (11%), not knowing how to get tested (7%), and worry about getting infected at the testing centre (5%). Many participants (10%) indicated other reasons, and open responses included many additional barriers to testing than those provided in the initial list. These covered all components of the COM-B model.

Conclusion

We identified a wide range of barriers using both quantitative and qualitative methods, which need to be addressed in order to increase COVID-19 testing behaviour.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.24.20201236: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.09.24.20201236v1 on medRxiv