Perceptions on undertaking regular asymptomatic self-testing for COVID-19 using lateral flow tests: a qualitative study of university students and staff
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Successful implementation of asymptomatic testing programmes using lateral flow tests (LFTs) depends on several factors, including feasibility, acceptability and how people act on test results. We aimed to examine experiences of university students and staff of regular asymptomatic self-testing using LFTs, and their subsequent behaviours.
Design and setting
A qualitative study using semistructured remote interviews and qualitative survey responses, which were analysed thematically.
Participants
People who were participating in weekly testing feasibility study, between October 2020 and January 2021, at the University of Oxford.
Results
We interviewed 18 and surveyed 214 participants. Participants were motivated to regularly self-test as they wanted to know whether or not they were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Most reported that a negative test result did not change their behaviour, but it did provide them with reassurance to engage with permitted activities. In contrast, some participants reported making decisions about visiting other people because they felt reassured by a negative test result. Participants valued the training but some still doubted their ability to carry out the test. Participants were concerned about safety of attending test sites with lots of people and reported home testing was most convenient.
Conclusions
Clear messages highlighting the benefits of regular testing for family, friends and society in identifying asymptomatic cases are needed. This should be coupled with transparent communication about the accuracy of LFTs and how to act on either a positive or negative result. Concerns about safety, convenience of testing and ability to do tests need to be addressed to ensure successful scaling up of asymptomatic testing.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.26.21254337: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Consent: This bespoke app recorded consent to the study, symptoms, test results, an upload of a photograph of the completed test, and responses to a one-item acceptability question. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Strengths and limitations: This is the first qualitative …
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.26.21254337: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Consent: This bespoke app recorded consent to the study, symptoms, test results, an upload of a photograph of the completed test, and responses to a one-item acceptability question. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Strengths and limitations: This is the first qualitative study examining views and experiences of students and staff of regular asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing in a university setting using LFTs. It highlights a number of key issues related to acceptability and feasibility of regular testing as well as its behavioural implications. We note some limitations. The mean number of tests conducted by each interview and survey participant was higher than the mean number of tests in non-interviewed participants, so our sample may over-represent those who continued to test regularly. Additionally, the FACTS participants were university student and staff volunteers, whose motivation to participate and perceived benefits may be different from those in the wider university population, and other non-university settings. The majority of interview participants were also staff. We adopted rapid qualitative analysis to aid identification of key issues but full transcription of qualitative data could have minimised the potential for errors of interpretation. However, we discussed interpretation of data on a regular basis with other members of the team and extensive notes have been made after each interview. Implications for policy and practice: Our study indicates that messages highlighting the benefits for family, friends and society in identifying asymptomatic cases and contributing to fighting the pandemic and ultimately lifting lockdowns might be beneficial for encouraging regular use of L...
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.
-
