ArticleJAMA network open2022
Use of a Digital Assistant to Report COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Self-test Results to Health Departments in 6 US Communities.
Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Population health and implementation outcomes of self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 using antigen detecting diagnostics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Acceptability of Covid-19 self-testing among Primary Health Care users.Revista de saude publica · 2026Article
- Digitally delivered, systemically challenged: A qualitative study of health system readiness for digital care.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Integrating the results of at-home diagnostic testing with public health surveillance to better track COVID-19 and future public health threats.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2024Article
- Integration of individualized and population-level molecular epidemiology data to model COVID-19 outcomes.Cell reports. Medicine · 2024Article
- Self-tests for COVID-19: What is the evidence? A living systematic review and meta-analysis (2020-2023).PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Leveraging School Infection Data to Address Community COVID-19 Data Gaps.Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society · 2023Article
- Number of initial symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with the risk of otological symptoms: a retrospective study.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Association of neighborhood-level sociodemographic factors with Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) distribution of COVID-19 rapid antigen tests in 5 US communities.BMC public health · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Widespread distribution of rapid antigen tests is integral to the US 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 6 communities throughout the United States used a digital assistant to log rapid antigen test results and report them to their local departments of health. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study is based on anonymously collected data from the beneficiaries of the Say Yes! Covid Test program, which distributed more than 3 000 000 rapid antigen tests at no cost to residents of 6 communities (Louisville, Kentucky; Indianapolis, Indiana; Fulton County, Georgia; O'ahu, Hawaii; Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Michigan; and Chattanooga, Tennessee) between April and October 2021. A descriptive evaluation of beneficiary use of a digital assistant for logging and reporting their rapid antigen test results was performed. Interventions: Widespread community distribution of rapid antigen tests. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number and proportion of tests logged and reported to the local department of health through the digital assistant. Results: A total of 313 000 test kits were distributed, including 178 785 test kits that were ordered using the digital assistant. Among all distributed kits, 14 398 households (4.6%) used the digital assistant, but beneficiaries reported three-quarters of their rapid antigen test results to their state public health departments (30 965 tests reported of 41 465 total test results [75.0%]). The reporting behavior varied by community and was significantly higher among communities that were incentivized for reporting test results vs those that were not incentivized or partially incentivized (90.5% [95% CI, 89.9%-91.2%] vs 70.5%; [95% CI, 70.0%-71.0%]). In all communities, positive tests were less frequently reported than negative tests (60.4% [95% CI, 58.1%-62.8%] vs 75.5% [95% CI, 75.1%-76.0%]). Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that application-based reporting with incentives may be associated with increased reporting of rapid tests for COVID-19. However, increasing the adoption of the digital assistant may be a critical first step.
Indexed as
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.