Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34090404›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2021

Engagement with daily testing instead of self-isolating in contacts of confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2.

Alex F Martin, Sarah Denford, Nicola Love, Derren Ready, Isabel Oliver, Richard Amlôt, G James Rubin, Lucy Yardley

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Alex F Martin *Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response at King's College London, London, UK. alex.martin@kcl.ac.uk.
Sarah Denford *Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Nicola LoveNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Bristol, UK.
Derren ReadyHealth Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Isabel OliverHealth Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Richard AmlôtHealth Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response at King's College London, London, UK.
G James Rubin *Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response at King's College London, London, UK.
Lucy Yardley *Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
University of Bristol · GBKing's College London · GBPublic Health England · GBUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn December 2020, Public Health England with NHS Test and Trace initiated a pilot study in which close contacts of people with confirmed COVID-19 were given the option to carryout lateral flow device antigen tests at home, as an alternative to self-isolation for 10-14 days. In this study, we evaluated engagement with daily testing, and assessed levels of adherence to the rules relating to behaviour following positive or negative test results.

methodsWe conducted a service evaluation of the pilot study, examining survey responses from a subset of those who responded to an evaluation questionnaire. We used an online cross-sectional survey offered to adult contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases who consented to daily testing. We used a comparison group of contacts who were not offered testing and instead self-isolated.

resultsAcceptability of daily testing was lower among survey respondents who were not offered the option of testing and among people from ethnic minority groups. Overall, 52% of respondents reported being more likely to share details of people that they had been in contact with following a positive test result, if they knew that their contacts would be offered the option of daily testing. Only 2% reported that they would be less likely to provide details of their contacts. On the days that they were trying to self-isolate, 19% of participants reported that they left the house, with no significant group differences. Following a negative test, 13% of respondents reported that they increased their contacts, but most (58%) reported having fewer risky contacts.

conclusionsOur data suggest that daily testing is potentially acceptable, may facilitate sharing contact details of close contacts among those who test positive for COVID-19, and promote adherence to self-isolation. A better understanding is needed of how to make this option more acceptable for all households. The impact of receiving a negative test on behaviour remains a risk that needs to be monitored and mitigated by appropriate messaging. Future research should examine attitudes and behaviour in a context where infection levels are lower, testing is more familiar, and restrictions on activity have been reduced.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2AdultCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandEthnicityHumansMinority GroupsPilot ProjectsAdherenceCOVID-19Daily testingEngagementPolicySelf-isolating

Identifiers

PMID34090404
PMCPMC8178661
OpenAlexW3170809529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.