Public understanding of COVID-19 antibody testing and test results: A qualitative study conducted in the U.K. early in the pandemic.


Journal

Social science & medicine (1982)
ISSN: 1873-5347
Titre abrégé: Soc Sci Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8303205

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 2021
Historique:
revised: 26 01 2021
accepted: 12 02 2021
pubmed: 27 2 2021
medline: 7 4 2021
entrez: 26 2 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

During the COVID-19 pandemic, antibody testing was proposed by several countries as a surveillance tool to monitor the spread of the virus and potentially to ease restrictions. In the UK, antibody testing originally formed the third pillar of the UK Government's COVID-19 testing programme and was thought to offer hope that those with a positive antibody test result could return to normal life. However, at that time scientists and the public had little understanding of the longevity of COVID-19 antibodies, and whether they provided immunity to reinfection or transmission of the virus. This paper explores the UK public's understanding of COVID-19 testing, perceived test accuracy, the meaning of a positive test result, willingness to adhere to restrictive measures in response to an antibody test result and how they expect other people to respond. On-line synchronous focus groups were conducted in April/May 2020 during the first wave of the pandemic and the most stringent period of the COVID-19 restrictive measures. Data were analysed thematically. There was confusion in responses as to whether those with a positive or negative test should return to work and which restrictive measures would apply to them or their household members. Participants raised concerns about the wider public response to positive antibody test results and the adverse behavioural effects. There were worries that antibody tests could create a divided society particularly if those with a positive test result were given greater freedoms or chose to disregard the restrictive measures. Should these tests be offered more widely, information should be developed in consultation with the public to ensure clarity and address uncertainty about test results and subsequent behaviours.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
During the COVID-19 pandemic, antibody testing was proposed by several countries as a surveillance tool to monitor the spread of the virus and potentially to ease restrictions. In the UK, antibody testing originally formed the third pillar of the UK Government's COVID-19 testing programme and was thought to offer hope that those with a positive antibody test result could return to normal life. However, at that time scientists and the public had little understanding of the longevity of COVID-19 antibodies, and whether they provided immunity to reinfection or transmission of the virus.
OBJECTIVE
This paper explores the UK public's understanding of COVID-19 testing, perceived test accuracy, the meaning of a positive test result, willingness to adhere to restrictive measures in response to an antibody test result and how they expect other people to respond.
METHODS
On-line synchronous focus groups were conducted in April/May 2020 during the first wave of the pandemic and the most stringent period of the COVID-19 restrictive measures. Data were analysed thematically.
RESULTS
There was confusion in responses as to whether those with a positive or negative test should return to work and which restrictive measures would apply to them or their household members. Participants raised concerns about the wider public response to positive antibody test results and the adverse behavioural effects. There were worries that antibody tests could create a divided society particularly if those with a positive test result were given greater freedoms or chose to disregard the restrictive measures.
CONCLUSION
Should these tests be offered more widely, information should be developed in consultation with the public to ensure clarity and address uncertainty about test results and subsequent behaviours.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33636445
pii: S0277-9536(21)00110-6
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113778
pmc: PMC7884253
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Antibodies, Viral 0

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

113778

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Références

BMJ. 2020 Jun 24;369:m2284
pubmed: 32580937
BMJ. 2020 Jun 24;369:m2469
pubmed: 32580936
BMC Public Health. 2020 Oct 1;20(1):1483
pubmed: 33004011
PLoS One. 2020 Nov 4;15(11):e0240399
pubmed: 33147219
Lancet. 2021 Apr 17;397(10283):1459-1469
pubmed: 33844963
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Aug 27;17(17):
pubmed: 32867381
Science. 2021 Feb 5;371(6529):
pubmed: 33408181
Nature. 2021 Jan 14;:
pubmed: 33441993
Nature. 2020 May;581(7809):379-381
pubmed: 32439992
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Mar;21(3):e58-e63
pubmed: 33075284
BMJ Open. 2020 Aug 30;10(8):e040448
pubmed: 32868370
Qual Health Res. 2016 May;26(6):741-9
pubmed: 26935719
BMJ. 2020 Aug 26;370:m3340
pubmed: 32847834
Cell. 2021 Jan 7;184(1):169-183.e17
pubmed: 33296701

Auteurs

Jan Lecouturier (J)

Population and Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK. Electronic address: jan.lecouturier@newcastle.ac.uk.

Michael P Kelly (MP)

Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Forvie Site, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK. Electronic address: mk744@medschl.cam.ac.uk.

Fiona Graham (F)

Population and Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK. Electronic address: Fiona.Graham@newcastle.ac.uk.

Carly Meyer (C)

Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK. Electronic address: carly.meyer@ucl.ac.uk.

Mei Yee Tang (MY)

Population and Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK. Electronic address: Meiyee.Tang@newcastle.ac.uk.

Louis Goffe (L)

Population and Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK. Electronic address: Louis.Goffe@newcastle.ac.uk.

Chris Bonell (C)

Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK. Electronic address: chris.bonell@lstm.ac.uk.

Susan Michie (S)

Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK. Electronic address: s.michie@ucl.ac.uk.

Falko F Sniehotta (FF)

Population and Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK. Electronic address: falko.sniehotta@newcastle.ac.uk.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH