ArticleJournal of public economic theory2022
A theory of voluntary testing and self-isolation in an ongoing pandemic.
Article in Journal of public economic theory, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of voluntary testing on infectious disease epidemiology: A game theoretic approach.PloS one · 2023Article
- Test sensitivity for infection versus infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2.Managerial and decision economics : MDE · 2022Article
- A theory of voluntary testing and self-isolation in an ongoing pandemic.Journal of public economic theory · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Beyond Covid-19, there is a growing interest in what economic structures will be needed to face ongoing pandemics. In this paper, we focus on the diagnostic problem and examine a new paradigm of voluntary self-testing by private individuals. We develop a dynamic model where individuals without symptoms face daily choices of either taking the risk of going out (to work and socialize), staying at home in self-isolation, or using a test to verify whether they are infected before going out. Our central insight is that the equilibrium public infection risk falls when home-based testing becomes cheaper and easier to use, even if they generate both false-positive (type I error) and false-negative (type II error) test outcomes. We also show that the presence of naïve individuals actually reduces the equilibrium infection risk in the economy. Overall our model shows that, even if inaccurate, home-based tests are vital for an economy facing an ongoing pandemic.
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.