ArticleBMJ open2022
Evaluating the feasibility and acceptability of a safety protocol to mitigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission risks when participating in full-capacity live mass events: a cross-sectional survey and interview-based study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the Feasibility and Acceptability of a Bespoke Large Language Model Pipeline to Extract Data From Different Study Designs for Public Health Evidence Reviews.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Evaluating the feasibility and attitudes towards SARS-CoV-2 self-testing in a rural population in Zimbabwe: a cross-sectional survey.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Non-pharmaceutical interventions to reduce COVID-19 transmission in the UK: a rapid mapping review and interactive evidence gap map.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2024Review
- Self-tests for COVID-19: What is the evidence? A living systematic review and meta-analysis (2020-2023).PLOS global public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveInvestigate the feasibility and acceptability of a novel COVID-19 safety protocol combining professionally witnessed home-based videoed pre-event testing and a data-driven risk assessment model that was piloted at the Standon Calling Festival in July 2021.
designObservational study using a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design involving a survey, personal interviews and group discussions with a cross section of participants.
settingStandon Calling Festival, Hertfordshire, England.
participants4726 adults who attended Standon Calling and consented to participate in the study.
resultsNearly a quarter (23.1%; 1093) attendees (women 65%, men 35%) responded to the postevent survey. Eleven participants were interviewed before thematic saturation was reached. The majority (81.0%) of respondents found the at-home testing protocol convenient and of reasonable cost (73.6%). Confidence in the test result was enhanced due to professional-supported videoing (76.2%), whereas 72.6% had confidence in the security of the data. Videoed self-testing helped 45.0% of respondents to feel more confident in their lateral flow testing technique. The majority (85.5%) felt safer at the event and 93.7% agreed that the protocol did not interfere with their enjoyment of the event. Themes generated from interviews showed that the protocol could be applied to other disease areas and events, but there were concerns that over-reliance on test results alone could lead some people to have a false sense of security around the safety of the live event.
conclusionsOur study showed that a protocol that combines professionally witnessed home-based videoed pre-event testing is highly acceptable and feasible, and it can inform decision making and support the safe reopening of live mass events at full capacity. Although COVID-19 is now considered endemic in the UK, this protocol can be of value for other countries where the live events industry remains heavily impacted. Risk modelling should be tested and evaluated at future events to further increase the robustness of this protocol.
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.