“SARS-Cov-2 testing in the United Arab Emirates: Population Attitudes and Beliefs”
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Objectives
The United Arab Emirates responded to the SARS-COV-2 pandemic and widely implemented test-and-trace strategy. In this cross-sectional questionnaire-based study 531 subjects presenting for SARS-COV-2 testing were recruited to study population’s beliefs and choices regarding testing and were compared to 156 who never been tested.
Results
The community uptake in Abu Dhabi Emirate reached 90% (average of 68% overall). In the great majority it was self-motivated as 6% only had doctor referral. Those who had not taken a test were younger in age (p < 0.001), more likely performing activities such as shopping and eating out (p = 0.001), have a medical illness (p < 0.0001), and working from home (p = 0.005). The tested group reported significantly more agreement with the statement, if someone had negative result no need to stay home or wear mask. In conclusion, SARS-COV-2 testing had extensive coverage and high acceptability in the UAE. Acting on concluded beliefs and attitude are key to ensure the testing coverage efficiency and public empowerment.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.19.21251841: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources This group was sampled from the Ambulatory Healthcare Services AHS primary care physicians’ panel of patients above 18 years of age. Ambulatory Healthcaresuggested: NoneThe statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS v27. SPSSsuggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)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 …SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.19.21251841: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources This group was sampled from the Ambulatory Healthcare Services AHS primary care physicians’ panel of patients above 18 years of age. Ambulatory Healthcaresuggested: NoneThe statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS v27. SPSSsuggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)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 found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).
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.
-
