Dataset Information

Estimating the impact of COVID-19 self-test availability and modifications in test-strategy on overall test uptake using an experimental vignette study.

ABSTRACT: To inform future Dutch COVID-19 testing policies we did an experimental vignette study to investigate whether inclusion of the less reliable lateral flow tests (self-tests) would change test-uptake sufficiently to improve population-level test sensitivity. A representative sample (n = 3,270) participated in a 2-by-2 online experiment to evaluate the effects of test-guidelines including self-testing advice (IV1), and the effects of self-test availability (IV2) on expected test uptake (PCR test, self-test or no test) and sensitivity of the overall test strategy (primary outcome). Across four scenarios, changing test advice did not affect expected testing behaviour. Self-test availability, however, increased the timeliness of testing, the number of people testing, and overall test strategy sensitivity. Based on these findings, we recommend that (national) policy facilitates a supply of self-tests at home, for example through free and pro-active distribution of test-kits during a pandemic. This could substantially enhance the chances of timely detecting and isolating patients.

SUBMITTER: Zomer CL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10928216 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Estimating the impact of COVID-19 self-test availability and modifications in test-strategy on overall test uptake using an experimental vignette study.

Zomer Colene L CL Kroese Floor F Sanders Jet G JG Janssen Riny R de Bruin Marijn M

Scientific reports 20240311 1

To inform future Dutch COVID-19 testing policies we did an experimental vignette study to investigate whether inclusion of the less reliable lateral flow tests (self-tests) would change test-uptake sufficiently to improve population-level test sensitivity. A representative sample (n = 3,270) participated in a 2-by-2 online experiment to evaluate the effects of test-guidelines including self-testing advice (IV1), and the effects of self-test availability (IV2) on expected test uptake (PCR test, s ...[more]

PMID: 38467654

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and study aims Bowel cancer is a National Health Service (NHS) priority as 1 in 20 people will develop the disease and half of those will die, equating to 17,000 each year in the UK. Bowel cancer is largely preventable via the timely detection and removal of precancerous growths in the bowel (called adenomas) and chances of survival are improved greatly if bowel cancer is detected early, before the disease causes symptoms. As a result, screening tests for adenomas and bowel cancer in people who do not currently have symptoms are an important method for reducing the number of deaths from bowel cancer. However, the success of any screening test depends on people being willing to be tested so it is essential that tests are as acceptable as possible to invitees in order to maximise uptake. There are several tests that could be used to screen for bowel cancer, each with their own advantages and disadvantages, and there is no clearly superior option. For example, some tests are more accurate than others but screening invitees might consider these to be less convenient than alternatives. It is currently unclear which test people would be most likely to have. It is also uncertain what the specific reasons are that underpin these preferences. This study aims to answer these questions. Who can participate? We are recruiting members of the public who are representative of individuals who have not had bowel cancer screening before but are approaching the age at which it is offered. We are sending out questionnaires to men and women aged 45-54 years via their General Practitioner. We are also using several other criteria to ensure that people in our study are similar to those who would be offered screening. For example, individuals will only be invited to take part if they have not previously had a diagnosis of bowel cancer or already have regular bowel tests for reasons unrelated to screening. What does the study involve? People who are eligible to take part in the study will be posted a questionnaire and written information about one of the four tests that we are investigating. The test that they will receive information about will be randomly determined. Individuals will be asked to read the information and complete the questionnaire, which asks questions on whether they believe they would be willing to have the test and their impressions of the different aspects of the procedure (for example, how convenient or inconvenient it might be for them). Participants will then send the questionnaire back to the main study centre, where we will compare peoples responses across the different tests once they have all been collected.

Project description:Purpose. We investigated how health care systems should communicate with patients about possible exposures to blood-borne pathogens that may have occurred during their care. Our goal was to determine how best to communicate uncertain risk information in a way that would minimize harm to patients, maintain their trust, and encourage patients to seek follow-up treatment. Methods. Participants (N = 1103) were randomized to receive one of six vignette surveys; 997 (98.4%) responded. All vignettes described the same event, but differed by risk level and recommendations (lower risk v. higher risk) and by communication mode (telephone, letter, social media). We measured participants' perceived risk of blood-borne infection, trust in the health care system, and shared decision making about next clinical steps. Open-ended questions were analyzed using grounded thematic analysis. Results. When the vignette requested patients to undergo testing and practice certain health behaviors (higher risk), participants' likelihood of seeking follow-up testing for blood-borne pathogens and their understanding of health issues increased. Perceived trust was unaffected by risk level or communication processes. Qualitative data indicated a desire for telephone communication from providers known to the patient. Limitations. It is not clear whether higher risk language or objective risk levels in vignettes motivated patients' behavioral intentions. Conclusion. Using higher risk language when disclosing large-scale adverse events increased participants' willingness to seek follow-up care. Implications. Health care organizations' disclosures should focus on the next steps to take after health care exposures. This communication should involve helping patients to understand their personal health issues better, make them feel that they know which steps to take following the receipt of this information, and encouraging them to seek follow-up infectious disease testing in order to better take care of themselves.

Dataset Information

Estimating the impact of COVID-19 self-test availability and modifications in test-strategy on overall test uptake using an experimental vignette study.

Publications

Estimating the impact of COVID-19 self-test availability and modifications in test-strategy on overall test uptake using an experimental vignette study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets