Were SARS-CoV-2 self-tests used for their intended purpose? The experience in Belgium.
Belgium
SARS-CoV-2 testing
Self-testing
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Jun 2023
29 Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
29
10
2022
accepted:
15
06
2023
medline:
3
7
2023
pubmed:
30
6
2023
entrez:
29
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Self-testing has been promoted as a means of increasing COVID-19 test coverage. In Belgium, self-testing was recommended as a complement to the formal, provider-administered indications, such as out of courtesy before meeting others and when feared to be infected. More than a year after the introduction of self-testing their place in the test strategy was evaluated. We assessed trends in the number of self-tests sold, the number of positive self-tests reported, the proportion sold self-tests/total tests, and the proportion of all positive tests that were confirmed self-tests. To evaluate the reason why people use self-tests, we used the results of two online surveys among members of the general population: one among 27,397 people, held in April 2021, and one among 22,354 people, held in December 2021. The use of self-tests became substantial from end 2021 onwards. In the period mid-November 2021 - end-of-June 2022, the average proportion of reported sold self-tests to all COVID-19 tests was 37% and 14% of all positive tests were positive self-tests. In both surveys, the main reported reasons for using a self-test were having symptoms (34% of users in April 2021 and 31% in December 2021) and after a risk contact (27% in both April and December). Moreover, the number of self-tests sold, and the number of positive self-tests reported closely followed the same trend as the provider-administered tests in symptomatic people and high risk-contacts, which reinforces the hypothesis that they were mainly used for these two indications. From end 2021 onwards, self-testing covered a significant part of COVID-19 testing in Belgium, which increased without doubt the testing coverage. However, the available data seem to indicate that self-testing was mostly used for indications outside of official recommendations. If and how this affected the control of the epidemic remains unknown.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Self-testing has been promoted as a means of increasing COVID-19 test coverage. In Belgium, self-testing was recommended as a complement to the formal, provider-administered indications, such as out of courtesy before meeting others and when feared to be infected. More than a year after the introduction of self-testing their place in the test strategy was evaluated.
METHODS
METHODS
We assessed trends in the number of self-tests sold, the number of positive self-tests reported, the proportion sold self-tests/total tests, and the proportion of all positive tests that were confirmed self-tests. To evaluate the reason why people use self-tests, we used the results of two online surveys among members of the general population: one among 27,397 people, held in April 2021, and one among 22,354 people, held in December 2021.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The use of self-tests became substantial from end 2021 onwards. In the period mid-November 2021 - end-of-June 2022, the average proportion of reported sold self-tests to all COVID-19 tests was 37% and 14% of all positive tests were positive self-tests. In both surveys, the main reported reasons for using a self-test were having symptoms (34% of users in April 2021 and 31% in December 2021) and after a risk contact (27% in both April and December). Moreover, the number of self-tests sold, and the number of positive self-tests reported closely followed the same trend as the provider-administered tests in symptomatic people and high risk-contacts, which reinforces the hypothesis that they were mainly used for these two indications.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
From end 2021 onwards, self-testing covered a significant part of COVID-19 testing in Belgium, which increased without doubt the testing coverage. However, the available data seem to indicate that self-testing was mostly used for indications outside of official recommendations. If and how this affected the control of the epidemic remains unknown.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37386558
doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09704-0
pii: 10.1186/s12913-023-09704-0
pmc: PMC10311765
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
709Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
JAMA Health Forum. 2020 Mar 2;1(3):e200333
pubmed: 36218594
Reprod Biomed Online. 2020 Sep;41(3):483-499
pubmed: 32651106
Trop Med Int Health. 1999 Jun;4(6):442-7
pubmed: 10444320
Arch Public Health. 2021 Oct 27;79(1):188
pubmed: 34706768
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 May 2;5(5):e2210559
pubmed: 35522284
PLoS Med. 2021 Aug 12;18(8):e1003735
pubmed: 34383750
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2022 May;28(5):695-700
pubmed: 34363945
Eur Respir J. 2021 Apr 15;57(4):
pubmed: 33303544
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Aug 26;8:CD013705
pubmed: 32845525
PLoS One. 2013 Aug 13;8(8):e71442
pubmed: 23967211
Cleve Clin J Med. 2021 Mar 1;:
pubmed: 33579779
PLoS One. 2018 Aug 31;13(8):e0201622
pubmed: 30169508
Nature. 2021 Feb;590(7844):134-139
pubmed: 33348340
Nature. 2020 Sep;585(7826):496-498
pubmed: 32939084
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Jan 01;69(5152):1642-1647
pubmed: 33382679
JAMA Intern Med. 2022 Mar 01;182(3):332-341
pubmed: 35099501
Front Pediatr. 2021 Mar 16;9:645577
pubmed: 33796490
Int J Epidemiol. 2021 Nov 10;50(5):1458-1472
pubmed: 34293141
Lancet. 2020 Aug 22;396(10250):535-544
pubmed: 32645347
J Clin Virol. 2021 Nov;144:104985
pubmed: 34560340