ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2022
Saliva testing among teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic: Effects on health concerns, well-being, and precautionary behavior.
Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Scalable solutions for global health: the SalivaDirect model.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
- The experiences of patients ill with COVID-19-like symptoms and the role of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in supporting them: A qualitative study in eight European countries during the first wave of the pandemic.The European journal of general practice · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleAt the start of 2021, several SARS-CoV-2 cluster outbreaks in schools threatened in-person education and created a fairly chaotic and frightening environment for school personnel. To keep the schools open while preventing COVID-19 outbreaks, intensive diagnostic testing in teachers and school personnel was strongly recommended but missing at the time.
objectivesA project was launched in Belgian schools to weekly analyze the morning saliva of school personnel using PCR-testing to detect and prevent COVID-19 positive cases. In this quasi-experimental study, we aimed to examine whether the implementation of this saliva testing project impacted school personnel's pandemic-related health concerns, well-being, and adherence to the health-protective measures, contrasting experimental with control schools.
methodsThe data were collected during the third wave (Alpha-wave, February-March 2021) of the pandemic. The sample consisted of 435 participants from 34 different schools across Flanders (Belgium) (78.8% female; M age = 43.87 years, range = 21-67) of which 82% participated in the weekly saliva tests (i.e., experimental group) and 18% took part in the control group.
resultsResults from a series of linear mixed regression models showed that saliva testing buffered against an increase in health concerns among tested school personnel but did not affect participants' general well-being. Slight declines in adherence to the health-protective behaviors were observed, yet this was only the case for participants who felt less supported by their school principal. High degrees of principals' support also fostered the sharpest decreases in school staff's pandemic-related health concerns.
conclusionsWhen keeping the schools open in unstable pandemic times, weekly saliva testing is a promising strategy to prevent cluster outbreaks while simultaneously safeguarding health concerns among school personnel. School principals appear to play a critical role in the implementation of saliva testing to secure positive effects.
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.