Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36538498›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2022

Does receiving a SARS-CoV-2 antibody test result change COVID-19 protective behaviors? Testing risk compensation in undergraduate students with a randomized controlled trial.

Christina Ludema, Molly S Rosenberg, Jonathan T Macy, Sina Kianersi, Maya Luetke, Chen Chen, Lilian Golzarri-Arroyo, Erin Ables, Kevin Maki, David B Allison

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christina LudemaDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana.
Molly S RosenbergDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana.ORCID 0000-0001-6679-6791
Jonathan T MacyDepartment of Applied Health Science, Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana.
Sina KianersiDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana.ORCID 0000-0003-0950-2675
Maya LuetkeDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana.
Chen ChenDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana.
Lilian Golzarri-ArroyoBiostatistics Consulting Center, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana.
Erin AblesBiostatistics Consulting Center, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana.
Kevin MakiDepartment of Applied Health Science, Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana.
David B AllisonDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana.
Indiana University Bloomington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk compensation, or matching behavior to a perceived level of acceptable risk, can blunt the effectiveness of public health interventions. One area of possible risk compensation during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is antibody testing. While antibody tests are imperfect measures of immunity, results may influence risk perception and individual preventive actions. We conducted a randomized control trial to assess whether receiving antibody test results changed SARS-CoV-2 protective behaviors. PURPOSE: Assess whether objective information about antibody status, particularly for those who are antibody negative and likely still susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, increases protective behaviors. Secondarily, assess whether a positive antibody test results in decreased protective behaviors.

methodsIn September 2020, we enrolled 1076 undergraduate students, used fingerstick tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, and randomized participants to receive their results immediately or delayed by 4 weeks. Two weeks later, participants completed a survey about their engagement in 4 protective behaviors (mask use, social event avoidance, staying home from work/school, ensuring physical distancing). We estimated differences between conditions for each of these behaviors, stratified by antibody status. For negative participants at baseline, we also estimated the difference between conditions for seroconversion over 8 weeks of follow-up.

resultsFor the antibody negative participants (n = 1029) and antibody positive participants (n = 47), we observed no significant differences in protective behavior engagement between those who were randomized to receive test results immediately or after 4 weeks. For the baseline antibody negative participants, we also observed no difference in seroconversion outcomes between conditions.

conclusionsWe found that receiving antibody test results did not lead to significant behavior change in undergraduate students whether the SARS-CoV-2 antibody result was positive or negative.

Indexed as

COVID-19Antibodies, ViralHumansPandemicsPublic HealthSARS-CoV-2Antibodies, Viral

Identifiers

PMID36538498
PMCPMC9767325
OpenAlexW4312003509

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.