Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36142077›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Barriers to SARS-CoV-2 Testing among U.S. Employers in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Analysis Conducted January through April 2021.

Alberto J Caban-Martinez, Claudia Parvanta, Naciely Cabral, Cynthia K Ball, Adrienne Eastlake, Jeffrey L Levin, Kevin Moore, Dalia Nessim, Ernie Stracener, Matthew S Thiese and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 51% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. In Search of a Value Proposition for COVID-19 Testing in the Work Environment: A Social Marketing Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

11 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Alberto J Caban-MartinezDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33136, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5960-1308
Claudia ParvantaCollege of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33612, USA.
Naciely CabralCollege of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33612, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9165-9972
Cynthia K BallDepartment of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Texas at Tyler, Tyler, TX 75708, USA.
Adrienne EastlakeNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH 45226, USA.
Jeffrey L LevinDepartment of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Texas at Tyler, Tyler, TX 75708, USA.
Kevin MooreDepartment of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Ferguson College of Agriculture and the College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA.
Dalia NessimDepartment of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Texas at Tyler, Tyler, TX 75708, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0478-3845
Ernie StracenerWisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
Matthew S ThieseDepartment of Family & Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA.
Paul A SchulteAdvance Technologies and Laboratories International, Gaithersburg, MD 20878, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0696-0446
The University of Texas at Tyler · USUniversity of South Florida · USAdvanced Technologies and Laboratories International (United States) · USNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health · USOklahoma State University · USUniversity of Miami · USUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. companies were seeking ways to support their employees to return to the workplace. Nonetheless, the development of strategies to support the access, use, and interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 testing was challenging. In the present study, we explore, from the perspective of owners and company leadership, the barriers to SARS-CoV-2 testing among U.S. companies. Key informant interviews with company representatives were conducted during January-April 2021 about SARS-CoV-2 testing. A pre-interview survey assessed respondent socio-demographic and organizational characteristics. Interview sessions were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using MaxQDA. A total of twenty interviews were completed with at least two interviews conducted in each major U.S. industry sector. Ninety percent of participants represented companies in business >10 years, comprising both small and large workforces. Using a grounded theory approach, six themes emerged: (1) access to and knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 tests; (2) strategies for symptomatic and asymptomatic testing of workers; (3) type/availability of personal protective equipment to mitigate coronavirus exposures; (4) return-to-work policies; (5) guidance and communication of SARS-CoV-2 Testing; and (6) use of contact tracing and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Various modifiable and non-modifiable challenges for SARS-CoV-2 testing among U.S. companies were identified and can inform work-related SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2COVID-19 TestingCOVID-19 VaccinesHumansPandemicsCOVID-19 VaccinesbarrierscompaniesCOVID-19organizationsSARS-CoV-2testing

Identifiers

PMID36142077
PMCPMC9517542
OpenAlexW4296345860

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.