Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35411338›Full record

ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2022

If you build it, will they use it? Use of a Digital Assistant for Self-Reporting of COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test Results during Large Nationwide Community Testing Initiative.

Carly Herbert, Qiming Shi, Vik Kheterpal, Chris Nowak, Thejas Suvarna, Basyl Durnam, Summer Schrader, Stephanie Behar, Syed Naeem, Seanan Tarrant and 17 more

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

27 authors.

Qiming Shi
Vik Kheterpal
Chris Nowak
Thejas Suvarna
Basyl Durnam
Summer Schrader
Stephanie Behar
Syed Naeem
Seanan Tarrant
Ben Kalibala
Aditi Singh
Michael Cohen-WolkowiezORCID 0000-0002-2458-2266
Giselle Corbie-SmithORCID 0000-0003-0737-6775
Juan Marquez
Laura Gibson
Laurel O'Connor
John Broach
William Heetderks

Funding

The Center for Advancing Point of Care in Heart, Lung, Blood and Sleep DiseasesU54HL143541 · NHLBI · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI BRYAN O BUCHHOLZ, Nathaniel Scott Hafer · 2018 to 2026
$141.0M
University of Massachusetts Center for Clinical Science and Translational SupplementUL1TR001453 · NCATS · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI LUZURIAGA, KATHERINE F · 2015 to 2024
$39.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001453NHLBI NIH HHS U54 HL143541
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Wide-spread distribution of rapid-antigen tests is integral to the United States' strategy to address COVID-19; however, it is estimated that few rapid-antigen test results are reported to local departments of health. Objective: To characterize how often individuals in six communities throughout the United States used a digital assistant to log rapid-antigen test results and report them to their local Department of Health. Design: This prospective cohort study is based on anonymously collected data from the beneficiaries of The Say Yes! Covid Test program, which distributed 3,000,000 rapid antigen tests at no cost to residents of six communities between April and October 2021. We provide a descriptive evaluation of beneficiaries' use of digital assistant for logging and reporting their rapid antigen test results. Main Outcome and Measures: Number and proportion of tests logged and reported to the Department of Health through the digital assistant. Results: A total of 178,785 test kits were ordered by the digital assistant, and 14,398 households used the digital assistant to log 41,465 test results. Overall, a small proportion of beneficiaries used the digital assistant (8%), but over 75% of those who used it reported their rapid antigen test results to their state public health department. The reporting behavior varied between communities and was significantly different for communities that were incentivized for reporting test results (p < 0.001). In all communities, positive tests were less reported than negative tests (60.4% vs 75.5%; p<0.001). Conclusions and Relevance: These results indicate that app-based reporting with incentives may be an effective way to increase reporting of rapid tests for COVID-19; however, increasing the adoption of the digital assistant is a critical first step.

Identifiers

PMID35411338
PMCPMC8996627

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.