Assessing How Consumers Interpret and Act on Results From At-Home COVID-19 Self-test Kits: A Randomized Clinical Trial.


Journal

JAMA internal medicine
ISSN: 2168-6114
Titre abrégé: JAMA Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101589534

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 Mar 2022
Historique:
pubmed: 1 2 2022
medline: 11 3 2022
entrez: 31 1 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized SARS-CoV-2 rapid at-home self-test kits for individuals with and without symptoms. How appropriately users interpret and act on the results of at-home COVID-19 self-tests is unknown. To assess how users of at-home COVID-19 self-test kits interpret and act on results when given instructions authorized by the FDA, instructions based on decision science principles, or no instructions. A randomized clinical trial was conducted of 360 adults in the US who were recruited in April 2021 to complete an online survey on their interpretation of at-home COVID-19 self-test results. Participants were given 1 of 3 instruction types and were presented with 1 of 4 risk scenarios. Participants were paid $5 and had a median survey completion time of 8.7 minutes. Data analyses were performed from June to July 2021. Participants were randomized to receiving either the FDA-authorized instructions (authorized), the intervention instructions (intervention), or no instructions (control), and to 1 of 4 scenarios: 3 with a high pretest probability of infection (COVID-19 symptoms and/or a close contact with COVID-19) and 1 with low pretest probability (no symptoms and no contact). The intervention instructions were designed using decision science principles. Proportion of participants in the high pretest probability scenarios choosing to quarantine per federal recommendations and perceived probabilities of infection given a negative or positive COVID-19 test result. A Bonferroni correction accounted for multiple comparisons (3 instruction types × 4 scenarios; α = 0.004). After excluding 22 individuals who completed the survey too quickly, the responses of 338 participants (median [IQR] age, 38 [31 to 48] years; 154 (46%) women; 215 (64%) with a college degree or higher) were included in the study analysis. Given a positive test result, 95% (322 of 338; 95% CI, 0.92 to 0.97) of the total participants appropriately chose to quarantine regardless of which instructions they had received. Given a negative test result, participants in the high pretest probability scenarios were more likely to fail to quarantine appropriately with the authorized instructions (33%) than with the intervention (14%; 95% CI for the 19% difference, 6% to 31%; P = .004) or control (24%; 95% CI for the 9% difference, -4% to 23%; P = .02). In the low pretest probability scenario, the proportion choosing unnecessary quarantine was higher with the authorized instructions (31%) than with the intervention (22%; 95% CI for the 9% difference, -14% to 31%) or control (10%; 95% CI for the 21% difference, 0.5% to 41%)-neither comparison was statistically significant (P = .05 and P = .20 respectively). The findings of this randomized clinical trial indicate that at-home COVID-19 self-test kit users relying on the authorized instructions may not follow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's quarantine recommendations, producing unintended risks and unnecessary disruptions. Redesigned instructions that follow decision science principles may improve compliance. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04758299.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35099501
pii: 2788656
doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.8075
pmc: PMC8804977
doi:

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04758299']

Types de publication

Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S. Video-Audio Media

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

332-341

Subventions

Organisme : AHRQ HHS
ID : U19 HS024075
Pays : United States

Auteurs

Steven Woloshin (S)

Center for Medicine in the Media, Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
The Lisa Schwartz Foundation for Truth in Medicine, Norwich, Vermont.

Barry Dewitt (B)

Departments of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Medical Ethics, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Scania, Sweden.

Tamar Krishnamurti (T)

Division of General Internal Medicine, Center for Research on Health Care, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Baruch Fischhoff (B)

Departments of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

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