How do we engage people in testing for COVID-19? A rapid qualitative evaluation of a testing programme in schools, GP surgeries and a university

  1. Daniella Watson
  2. Natalia Laverty Baralle
  3. Jawahr Alagil
  4. Krithika Anil
  5. Sandy Ciccognani
  6. Rachel Dewar-Haggart
  7. Sarah Fearn
  8. Julia Groot
  9. Kathryn Knowles
  10. Claire Meagher
  11. Carmel McGrath
  12. Sarah Muir
  13. Jo Musgrove
  14. Kate Glyn-Owen
  15. Kath Woods-Townsend
  16. Andrew Mortimore
  17. Paul Roderick
  18. Janis Baird
  19. Hazel Inskip
  20. Keith Godfrey
  21. Mary Barker

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

The UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) emphasises the need for high levels of engagement with communities and individuals to ensure the effectiveness of any COVID-19 testing programme. A novel pilot health surveillance programme to assess the feasibility of weekly community RT-LAMP (Reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification) testing for the SARS-CoV-2 virus using saliva samples collected at home was developed and piloted by the University of Southampton and Southampton City Council.

Methods

Rapid qualitative evaluation was conducted to explore experiences of those who took part in the programme, of those who declined and of those in the educational and healthcare organisations involved in the pilot testing who were responsible for roll-out. This included 77 interviews and 20 focus groups with 223 staff, students, pupils and household members from four schools, one university, and one community healthcare NHS trust. The insights generated and informed the design and modification of the Southampton COVID-19 Saliva Testing Programme and the next phase of community-testing.

Results

Discussions revealed that high levels of communication, trust and convenience were necessary to ensure people’s engagement with the programme. Participants felt reassured by and pride in taking part in this novel programme. They suggested modifications to reduce the programme’s environmental impact and overcome cultural barriers to participation.

Conclusions

Participants’ and stakeholders’ motivations, challenges and concerns need to be understood and these insights used to modify the programme in a continuous, real-time process to ensure and sustain engagement with testing over the extended period necessary. Community leaders and stakeholder organisations should be involved throughout programme development and implementation to optimise engagement.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1186/s12889-022-12657-4
  2. Version published to 10.21203/rs.3.rs-890486/v1 on Research Square
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.29.21250730: (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.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2021.01.29.21250730v1 on medRxiv