Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34697600›Full record

ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2021

Experiences with opt-in, at-home screening for SARS-CoV-2 at a primary school in Germany: an implementation study.

Jonas Wachinger, Maximilian Schirmer, Nicole Täuber, Shannon A McMahon, Claudia M Denkinger

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. SARS-CoV-2 Screening Testing Programs for Safe In-person Learning in K-12 Schools.Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jonas WachingerHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5480-3138
Maximilian SchirmerDivision of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Centre for Infectiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Nicole TäuberIndependent Researcher, Sinsheim, Germany.
Shannon A McMahonHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8634-9283
Claudia M DenkingerDivision of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Centre for Infectiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7216-7067
Heidelberg University · DEJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Over the course of the pandemic, many countries have repeatedly closed schools and shifted schoolchildren to remote learning. However, evidence for negative mental and physiological health consequences of such measures for schoolchildren is increasing, highlighting the need for evidence-based recommendations on how to safely reopen schools. This study aims to assess implementation experiences, acceptability and feasibility of opt-in, at-home SARS-CoV-2 screening using rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) to facilitate safe face-to-face teaching during a pandemic. Methods: We present data from a prospective study implementing an RDT-based screening programme at a primary school in southwest Germany. In addition to quantitative data collected to assess screening diagnostic yield (number of participants, tests handed out to participants, positive RDT results reported), we conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with participating pupils, parents and school stakeholders to elicit implementation experiences and screening perceptions. Results: The screening intervention was highly accepted and appreciated among participants; no screening-associated positive RDT was reported over the duration of the study. Self-testing at home before coming to school was feasible, but more positive consequences of screening participation (eg, easing of mask mandates) besides a personal feeling of safety would have been appreciated across respondent groups. Participants preferred home-based RDTs over some other measures, particularly mask mandates. Despite the RDTs being licensed as self-tests in Germany, additional training can help avoid mistakes, and ensuring intervention ownership and improving pre-implementation communication can facilitate buy-in. Conclusions: Antigen-RDT-based SARS-CoV-2 screening programmes relying on self-testing at home are a feasible and acceptable supplement to the public health toolbox to facilitate a safe return to face-to-face teaching at schools. Trial registration number: DRKS00024845.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2ChildGermanyHumansProspective StudiesSchoolsadolescent healthCOVID-19health services researchqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID34697600
PMCPMC8529621
OpenAlexW3207173025

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.