Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35144956›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Who is engaging with lateral flow testing for COVID-19 in the UK? The COVID-19 Rapid Survey of Adherence to Interventions and Responses (CORSAIR) study.

Louise E Smith, Henry Ww Potts, Richard Amlôt, Nicola T Fear, Susan Michie, G James Rubin

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.4field-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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. SARS-CoV-2 self-test uptake and factors associated with self-testing during Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 waves in France, January to May 2022.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Louise E SmithInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK louise.e.smith@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1277-2564
Henry Ww PottsInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6200-8804
Richard AmlôtNIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3481-6588
Nicola T FearInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5792-2925
Susan MichieCentre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0063-6378
G James RubinInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4440-0570
King's College London · GBUniversity College London · GBHealth Protection Scotland · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate uptake of lateral flow testing, reporting of test results and psychological, contextual and socio-demographic factors associated with testing.

designA series of four fortnightly online cross-sectional surveys.

settingData collected from 19 April 2021 to 2 June 2021.

participantsPeople living in England and Scotland, aged 18 years or over, excluding those who reported their most recent test was a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test (n=6646, n≈1600 per survey).

main outcome measuresHaving completed at least one lateral flow test (LFT) in the last 7 days.

resultsWe used binary logistic regressions to investigate factors associated with having taken at least one LFT. Increased uptake of testing was associated with being vaccinated (adjusted ORs (aORs)=1.52-2.45, 95% CI 1.25 to 3.07, analysed separately by vaccine dose), employed (aOR=1.94, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.32), having been out to work in the last week (aOR=2.30, 95% CI 1.94 to 2.73) and working in a sector that adopted LFT early (aOR=2.54, 95% CI 2.14 to 3.02) . Uptake was higher in people who reported cardinal COVID-19 symptoms in the last week (aOR=1.89, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.66). People who had heard more about LFTs (aOR=2.28, 95% CI 2.06 to 2.51) and knew they were eligible to receive regular LFTs (aOR=2.98, 95% CI 2.35 to 3.78) were also more likely to have tested. Factors associated with not taking a test included agreeing that you do not need to test for COVID-19 unless you have come into contact with a case (aOR=0.51, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.55).

conclusionsUptake of lateral flow testing is low. Encouraging testing through workplaces and places of study is likely to increase uptake, although care should be taken not to pressurise employees and students. Increasing knowledge that everyone is eligible for regular asymptomatic testing and addressing common misconceptions may drive uptake.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdolescentCOVID-19 TestingCross-Sectional StudiesHumansSARS-CoV-2United KingdomCOVID-19public health

Identifiers

PMID35144956
PMCPMC8845094
OpenAlexW4226173255

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.