Students' and staffs' views and experiences of asymptomatic testing on a university campus during the COVID-19 pandemic in Scotland: a mixed methods study.
COVID-19
Health policy
Infection control
PUBLIC HEALTH
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Journal
BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 03 2023
20 03 2023
Historique:
entrez:
20
3
2023
pubmed:
21
3
2023
medline:
23
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To explore the acceptability of regular asymptomatic testing for SARS-CoV-2 on a university campus using saliva sampling for PCR analysis and the barriers and facilitators to participation. Cross-sectional surveys and qualitative semistructured interviews. Edinburgh, Scotland. University staff and students who had registered for the testing programme (TestEd) and provided at least one sample. 522 participants completed a pilot survey in April 2021 and 1750 completed the main survey (November 2021). 48 staff and students who consented to be contacted for interview took part in the qualitative research. Participants were positive about their experience with TestEd with 94% describing it as 'excellent' or 'good'. Facilitators to participation included multiple testing sites on campus, ease of providing saliva samples compared with nasopharyngeal swabs, perceived accuracy compared with lateral flow devices (LFDs) and reassurance of test availability while working or studying on campus. Barriers included concerns about privacy while testing, time to and methods of receiving results compared with LFDs and concerns about insufficient uptake in the university community. There was little evidence that the availability of testing on campus changed the behaviour of participants during a period when COVID-19 restrictions were in place. The provision of free asymptomatic testing for COVID-19 on a university campus was welcomed by participants and the use of saliva-based PCR testing was regarded as more comfortable and accurate than LFDs. Convenience is a key facilitator of participation in regular asymptomatic testing programmes. Availability of testing did not appear to undermine engagement with public health guidelines.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36940944
pii: bmjopen-2022-065021
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065021
pmc: PMC10030276
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e065021Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: LB is Chief Social Policy Adviser to the Scottish government (part-time secondment) and chaired the Universities and Colleges Advisory Group, a subgroup of the Chief Medical Officer of Scotland’s Advisory Group on COVID-19. HRS has received payment from the Scottish Parliament for advising the COVID-19 recovery committee. AS receives funding from the European Research Council (grant number 715450) for Investigating the Design and Use of Diagnostic Devices in Global Health and holds positions on the Royal Anthropological Institute Medical Committee (unpaid) and the Wellcome Trust Career Development Committee (paid). TA receives internal support from the University of Edinburgh. As the founder and director of BioCaptiva (a liquid biopsy company unrelated to the present study), he receives consulting fees. Additionally, he has received travel expenses for the Biomarkers UK Congress, Oxford Global, November 2021, and Liquid Biopsies, Global Engage conference, December 2021. TA is the Regional Champion for Scotland for the Academy of Medical Sciences, and sits on the Genomics England Scientific Advisory Committee, European Research Council advanced grant panel for genetics. He is also a trustee and director of the PHG Foundation.
Références
Public Health. 2021 Feb;191:11-16
pubmed: 33465515
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020 Dec 31;6(4):e25546
pubmed: 33315584
BMJ. 2020 Dec 15;371:m4848
pubmed: 33323368
Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Dec;136(6):1103-1108
pubmed: 32858567
BMJ. 2020 Sep 29;370:m3789
pubmed: 32994203
Public Health. 2022 Mar;204:54-62
pubmed: 35176622
Sci Rep. 2021 Jun 3;11(1):11728
pubmed: 34083593
BMJ. 2020 Aug 20;370:m3262
pubmed: 32819920
PLoS Biol. 2020 Dec 15;18(12):e3001030
pubmed: 33320856
BMC Public Health. 2022 Feb 14;22(1):305
pubmed: 35164728
J Public Health (Oxf). 2021 Apr 12;43(1):82-88
pubmed: 33124664
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021 Oct 04;8(12):ofab495
pubmed: 34904117
Clin Med (Lond). 2020 Sep;20(5):e165-e169
pubmed: 32680837
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Nov 11;20(1):1031
pubmed: 33176771
BMJ Open. 2021 Sep 2;11(9):e053850
pubmed: 34475190
BMJ. 2020 Sep 1;370:m3365
pubmed: 32873595
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Dec 29;18(1):
pubmed: 33383781
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Apr 15;18(8):
pubmed: 33920908
PLoS One. 2021 May 26;16(5):e0251296
pubmed: 34038425
Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 Sep 15;11(9):
pubmed: 34574026
Nat Hum Behav. 2020 Sep;4(9):972-982
pubmed: 32848231