Low uptake of COVID-19 lateral flow testing among university students: a mixed methods evaluation.
COVID-19
Evaluation
Lateral flow test
Mixed methods
Uptake
Journal
Public health
ISSN: 1476-5616
Titre abrégé: Public Health
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 0376507
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2022
Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
23
08
2021
revised:
21
12
2021
accepted:
04
01
2022
pubmed:
18
2
2022
medline:
17
3
2022
entrez:
17
2
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to evaluate COVID-19 lateral flow testing (LFT) among asymptomatic university students. This study was a mixed methods evaluation of LFT among University of Bristol students. We conducted (1) an analysis of testing uptake and exploration of demographic variations in uptake using logistic regression; (2) an online student survey about views on university testing; and (3) qualitative interviews to explore participants' experiences of testing and subsequent behaviour, analysed using a thematic approach. A total of 12,391 LFTs were conducted on 8025 of 36,054 (22.3%) students. Only one in 10 students had the recommended two tests. There were striking demographic disparities in uptake with those from ethnic minority groups having lower uptake (e.g. 3% of Chinese students were tested vs 30.7% of White students) and variations by level and year of study (ranging from 5.3% to 33.7%), place of residence (29.0%-35.6%) and faculty (15.2%-32.8%). Differences persisted in multivariable analyses. A total of 436 students completed the online survey, and 20 in-depth interviews were conducted. Barriers to engagement with testing included a lack of awareness, knowledge and understanding, and concerns about the accuracy and safety. Students understood the limitations of LFTs but requested further information about test accuracy. Tests were used to inform behavioural decisions, often in combination with other information, such as the potential for exposure to the virus and perceptions of vulnerability. The low uptake of testing brings into question the role of mass LFT in university settings. Innovative strategies may be needed to increase LFT uptake among students.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35176622
pii: S0033-3506(22)00003-8
doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2022.01.002
pmc: PMC8755476
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
54-62Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_19067
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_19067/2
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/V038613/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Références
Lancet. 2021 Apr 17;397(10283):1425-1427
pubmed: 33609444
Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88
pubmed: 16204405
BMC Public Health. 2018 Apr 13;18(1):499
pubmed: 29653536
PLoS Biol. 2021 Apr 29;19(4):e3001216
pubmed: 33914730
BMJ. 2020 Dec 15;371:m4848
pubmed: 33323368
BMJ. 2021 Feb 4;372:n287
pubmed: 33541908
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Dec 29;18(1):
pubmed: 33383781
Nurs Health Sci. 2013 Sep;15(3):398-405
pubmed: 23480423
EClinicalMedicine. 2021 Mar;33:100759
pubmed: 33644720
Front Public Health. 2021 Aug 03;9:714041
pubmed: 34414160
BMJ. 2021 Jan 12;372:n81
pubmed: 33436413
Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2021 Jul;6:100107
pubmed: 34002172
BMC Public Health. 2021 May 10;21(1):892
pubmed: 33971855
Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 Sep 15;11(9):
pubmed: 34574026
Qual Health Res. 2016 Nov;26(13):1753-1760
pubmed: 26613970