Usability and Acceptability of Home-based Self-testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Antibodies for Population Surveillance.
COVID-19
SARS-CoV-2
home-testing
lateral flow immunoassay
usability
Journal
Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
ISSN: 1537-6591
Titre abrégé: Clin Infect Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9203213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 05 2021
04 05 2021
Historique:
received:
08
07
2020
pubmed:
14
8
2020
medline:
11
5
2021
entrez:
14
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study assesses acceptability and usability of home-based self-testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies using lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA). We carried out public involvement and pilot testing in 315 volunteers to improve usability. Feedback was obtained through online discussions, questionnaires, observations, and interviews of people who tried the test at home. This informed the design of a nationally representative survey of adults in England using two LFIAs (LFIA1 and LFIA2) which were sent to 10 600 and 3800 participants, respectively, who provided further feedback. Public involvement and pilot testing showed high levels of acceptability, but limitations with the usability of kits. Most people reported completing the test; however, they identified difficulties with practical aspects of the kit, particularly the lancet and pipette, a need for clearer instructions and more guidance on interpretation of results. In the national study, 99.3% (8693/8754) of LFIA1 and 98.4% (2911/2957) of LFIA2 respondents attempted the test and 97.5% and 97.8% of respondents completed it, respectively. Most found the instructions easy to understand, but some reported difficulties using the pipette (LFIA1: 17.7%) and applying the blood drop to the cassette (LFIA2: 31.3%). Most respondents obtained a valid result (LFIA1: 91.5%; LFIA2: 94.4%). Overall there was substantial concordance between participant and clinician interpreted results (kappa: LFIA1 0.72; LFIA2 0.89). Impactful public involvement is feasible in a rapid response setting. Home self-testing with LFIAs can be used with a high degree of acceptability and usability by adults, making them a good option for use in seroprevalence surveys.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
This study assesses acceptability and usability of home-based self-testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies using lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA).
METHODS
We carried out public involvement and pilot testing in 315 volunteers to improve usability. Feedback was obtained through online discussions, questionnaires, observations, and interviews of people who tried the test at home. This informed the design of a nationally representative survey of adults in England using two LFIAs (LFIA1 and LFIA2) which were sent to 10 600 and 3800 participants, respectively, who provided further feedback.
RESULTS
Public involvement and pilot testing showed high levels of acceptability, but limitations with the usability of kits. Most people reported completing the test; however, they identified difficulties with practical aspects of the kit, particularly the lancet and pipette, a need for clearer instructions and more guidance on interpretation of results. In the national study, 99.3% (8693/8754) of LFIA1 and 98.4% (2911/2957) of LFIA2 respondents attempted the test and 97.5% and 97.8% of respondents completed it, respectively. Most found the instructions easy to understand, but some reported difficulties using the pipette (LFIA1: 17.7%) and applying the blood drop to the cassette (LFIA2: 31.3%). Most respondents obtained a valid result (LFIA1: 91.5%; LFIA2: 94.4%). Overall there was substantial concordance between participant and clinician interpreted results (kappa: LFIA1 0.72; LFIA2 0.89).
CONCLUSIONS
Impactful public involvement is feasible in a rapid response setting. Home self-testing with LFIAs can be used with a high degree of acceptability and usability by adults, making them a good option for use in seroprevalence surveys.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32785665
pii: 5891615
doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1178
pmc: PMC7454392
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Viral
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e384-e393Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_19012
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : British Heart Foundation
ID : RE/18/4/34215
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : RP-2016-07-012
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 200861/Z/16/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/J008761/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/S019669/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R015600/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
Références
PLoS One. 2020 Jan 14;15(1):e0227198
pubmed: 31935228
Wellcome Open Res. 2020 Jun 11;5:139
pubmed: 33748431
Thorax. 2020 Dec;75(12):1082-1088
pubmed: 32796119
Sex Transm Infect. 2018 May;94(3):169-173
pubmed: 28924053
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016 Aug 22;10(5):1161-8
pubmed: 27044519
Lancet. 2020 Aug 22;396(10250):535-544
pubmed: 32645347
Lancet HIV. 2018 Jun;5(6):e277-e290
pubmed: 29703707
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276-82
pubmed: 23092060
Wellcome Open Res. 2020 Aug 25;5:200
pubmed: 33997297
PLoS One. 2019 Jul 1;14(7):e0218795
pubmed: 31260480
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013 Mar 01;7(2):478-88
pubmed: 23567007