Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35850742›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2022

A qualitative process analysis of daily contact testing as an alternative to self-isolation following close contact with a confirmed carrier of SARS-CoV-2.

Sarah Denford, Alex F Martin, Lauren Towler, Fiona Mowbray, Rosie Essery, Rachael Bloomer, Derren Ready, Nicola Love, Richard Amlôt, Isabel Oliver and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. 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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah DenfordHealth Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at the University of Bristol in Collaboration With UK Health Security Agency, Bristol, UK. sarah.denford@bristol.ac.uk.
Alex F MartinHealth Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response at King's College London in Collaboration With UK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Lauren TowlerSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Fiona MowbrayHealth Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response at King's College London in Collaboration With UK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Rosie EsseryHealth Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at the University of Bristol in Collaboration With UK Health Security Agency, Bristol, UK.
Rachael BloomerPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Priory Road Complex, BS8 1TU, Bristol, UK.
Derren ReadyHealth Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at the University of Bristol in Collaboration With UK Health Security Agency, Bristol, UK.
Nicola LoveHealth Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at the University of Bristol in Collaboration With UK Health Security Agency, Bristol, UK.
Richard AmlôtHealth Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at the University of Bristol in Collaboration With UK Health Security Agency, Bristol, UK.
Isabel OliverHealth Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at the University of Bristol in Collaboration With UK Health Security Agency, Bristol, UK.
G James RubinHealth Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response at King's College London in Collaboration With UK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Lucy YardleyHealth Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at the University of Bristol in Collaboration With UK Health Security Agency, Bristol, UK.
University of Bristol · GBUK Health Security AgencyKing's College London · GBUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn July 2021, a randomised controlled trial was conducted to compare the effect on SARS-CoV-2 transmission of seven days of Daily Contact Testing (DCT) using Lateral Flow Test (LFT) and two Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests as an alternative to 10 days of standard self-isolation with one PCR, following close contact with a SARS-CoV-2 carrier. In this qualitative study, we used a nested process evaluation to aid interpretation of the trial and provide insight into factors influencing use of tests, understanding of test results, and how tests were used to inform behavioural decisions.

methodsInterviews were conducted with 60 participants (42 randomised to DCT and 18 randomised to self-isolation) who had been in close contact with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 carrier and had consented to take part in the trial.

resultsData were organised into three overarching themes: (1) assessing the risks and benefits of DCT (2) use of testing during the study period and (3) future use of testing. Attitudes toward DCT as an alternative to self-isolation and behaviour during the testing period appeared to be informed by an assessment of the associated risks and benefits. Participants reported how important it was for them to avoid isolation, how necessary self-isolation was considered to be, and the ability of LFTs to detect infection. Behaviour during the testing period was modified to reduce risks and harms as much as possible. Testing was considered a potential compromise, reducing both risk of transmission and the negative impact of self-isolation, and was regarded as a way to return to normal.

conclusionParticipants in this study viewed DCT as a sensible, feasible, and welcome means of avoiding unnecessary self-isolation. Although negative LFTs provided reassurance, most people still restricted their activity as recommended. DCT was also highly valued by those in vulnerable households as a means of providing reassurance of the absence of infection and as an important means of detecting infection and prompting self-isolation when necessary.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2HumansCovid-19Lateral flow deviceProcess evaluationQualitativeTesting

Identifiers

PMID35850742
PMCPMC9294818
OpenAlexW4285729951

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.