ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2021
Feasibility and Acceptability of Community Coronavirus Disease 2019 Testing Strategies (FACTS) in a University Setting.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Acceptability of self-sampling and self-testing for infections: a rapid systematic review on public users' views.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- A COVID-19 Testing Preference Study in Schools.Pediatrics · 2023Trial
- Living Relational Ethics: A Case Study of a COVID-19 Asymptomatic Testing Programme in Higher Education.Public health ethics · 2026Article
- Population health and implementation outcomes of self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 using antigen detecting diagnostics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Uptake, Acceptability, and Results of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Testing in Community Settings in Cameroon.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2025Article
- Acceptability, Feasibility, and Uptake of COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Self-Testing at the Community Level in Tanzania.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2025Article
- Utility, comfort and feasibility of SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic testing integration into routine care: a cross-sectional survey assessing healthcare workers' perspectives in Kenya and Cameroon.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- Non-pharmaceutical interventions to reduce COVID-19 transmission in the UK: a rapid mapping review and interactive evidence gap map.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2024Review
- Influence parental- and child-related factors on the acceptance of SARS-CoV-2 test methods in schools and daycare facilities.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Self-tests for COVID-19: What is the evidence? A living systematic review and meta-analysis (2020-2023).PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Evaluation of COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic tests for self-testing in Lesotho and Zambia.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Guiding organisational decision-making about COVID-19 asymptomatic testing in workplaces: mixed-method study to inform an ethical framework.BMC public health · 2022Article
- SARS-CoV-2 rapid test versus RT-qPCR on noninvasive respiratory self-samples during a city mass testing campaign.The Journal of infection · 2022Article
- Congenital toxoplasmosis: Should we still care about screening?Food and waterborne parasitology · 2022Article
- Exploration of the uptake of asymptomatic COVID-19 lateral flow testing in Birmingham, UK: survey and qualitative research.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Conducting rapid qualitative interview research during the COVID-19 pandemic-Reflections on methodological choices.Frontiers in sociology · 2022Article
- Feasibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen self-testing in school and summer camp attendees.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuring the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020, the UK government began a mass severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing program. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptability of organized regular self-testing for SARS-CoV-2.
methodsThis was a mixed-methods observational cohort study in asymptomatic students and staff at University of Oxford, who performed SARS-CoV-2 antigen lateral flow self-testing. Data on uptake and adherence, acceptability, and test interpretation were collected via a smartphone app, an online survey, and qualitative interviews.
resultsAcross 3 main sites, 551 participants (25% of those invited) performed 2728 tests during a follow-up of 5.6 weeks; 447 participants (81%) completed at least 2 tests, and 340 (62%) completed at least 4. The survey, completed by 214 participants (39%), found that 98% of people were confident to self-test and believed self-testing to be beneficial. Acceptability of self-testing was high, with 91% of ratings being acceptable or very acceptable. A total of 2711 (99.4%) test results were negative, 9 were positive, and 8 were inconclusive. Results from 18 qualitative interviews with students and staff revealed that participants valued regular testing, but there were concerns about test accuracy that impacted uptake and adherence.
conclusionsThis is the first study to assess feasibility and acceptability of regular SARS-CoV-2 self-testing. It provides evidence to inform recruitment for, adherence to, and acceptability of regular SARS-CoV-2 self-testing programs for asymptomatic individuals using lateral flow tests. We found that self-testing is acceptable and people were able to interpret results accurately.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.