Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35137643›Full record

ArticlePublic health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)

Acceptance of Saliva-Based Specimen Collection for SARS-CoV-2 Testing Among K-12 Students, Teachers, and Staff.

Heather P McLaughlin, Mary Claire Worrell, Sara Malone, Patrick Dawson, Brett Maricque, Jessica L Halpin, Sooji Lee, Stephanie A Fritz, Sarah C Tinker, Julie A Neidich and 7 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

17 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Heather P McLaughlinCOVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4155-5347
Mary Claire WorrellCOVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Sara MaloneWashington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Patrick DawsonCOVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Brett MaricqueWashington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Jessica L HalpinCOVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Sooji LeeCOVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Stephanie A FritzWashington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Sarah C TinkerCOVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Julie A NeidichWashington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Katie TownsSpringfield-Greene County Health Department, Springfield, MO, USA.
Justin S LeeCOVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Lisa C BarriosCOVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
John C NeatherlinCOVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Jason G NewlandWashington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Johanna S SalzerCOVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
SARS-CoV-2 Specimen Collection Field Team
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSaliva specimens collected in school populations may offer a more feasible, noninvasive alternative to nasal swabs for large-scale COVID-19 testing efforts in kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) schools. We investigated acceptance of saliva-based COVID-19 testing among quarantined K-12 students and their parents, teachers, and staff members who recently experienced a SARS-CoV-2 exposure in school.

methodsWe surveyed 719 participants, in person or by telephone, who agreed to or declined a free saliva-based COVID-19 reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction test as part of a surveillance investigation about whether they would have consented to testing if offered a nasal swab instead. We conducted this investigation in 6 school districts in Greene County (n = 3) and St. Louis County (n = 3), Missouri, from January 25 through March 23, 2021.

resultsMore than one-third (160 of 446) of K-12 students (or their parents or guardians), teachers, and staff members who agreed to a saliva-based COVID-19 test indicated they would have declined testing if specimen collection were by nasal swab. When stratified by school level, 51% (67 of 132) of elementary school students or their parents or guardians would not have agreed to testing if a nasal swab was offered.

conclusionsSome students, especially those in elementary school, preferred saliva-based COVID-19 testing to nasal swab testing. Use of saliva-based testing might increase voluntary participation in screening efforts in K-12 schools to help prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2COVID-19 TestingHumansSalivaSpecimen HandlingStudentsCOVID-19K-12 schoolssaliva-based testingschool healthscreening

Identifiers

PMID35137643
PMCPMC9109545
OpenAlexW4210893529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.