ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2023
Hesitancy to Undergo SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Testing in China: Nationwide Cross-sectional Study.
Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing the impact of COVID-19 on middle-aged and older females in China: a comparative study of urban-rural disparities.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Identifying Data-Driven Clinical Subgroups for Cervical Cancer Prevention With Machine Learning: Population-Based, External, and Diagnostic Validation Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2025Article
- COVID-19 Testing Behavior as a Predictor of COVID-19 Vaccination in Southeastern Louisiana: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.Vaccines · 2024Article
- Knowledge and willingness toward SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing among older adults in China: a nationwide cross-sectional study.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2023Article
- Public's Willingness to Perform COVID-19 Self-Testing During the Transition to the Endemic Phase in Malaysia - A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study.Risk management and healthcare policy · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing (RAT) could be a useful supplementary test to diagnose larger numbers of acute asymptomatic infections and alleviate the limitations of polymerase chain reaction testing. However, hesitancy to undergo SARS-CoV-2 RAT may compromise its implementation.
objectiveWe aimed to understand the prevalence and correlates of hesitancy to undergo RAT among adults not infected with SARS-CoV-2 in mainland China.
methodsA nationwide cross-sectional survey on hesitancy to undergo SARS-CoV-2 RAT was conducted among adults not infected with SARS-CoV-2 in mainland China between April 29, 2022, and May 10, 2022. Participants completed an online questionnaire that covered the following COVID-19-related factors: sociodemographic characteristics, experiences of COVID-19 restrictions and knowledge of COVID-19, and attitude toward COVID-19 and its screening. This study was a secondary analysis of data from the survey. We compared the characteristics of participants by hesitancy to undergo SARS-CoV-2 RAT. Thereafter, logistic regression with a sparse group minimax concave penalty was used to identify correlates of hesitancy to undergo RAT.
resultsWe recruited 8856 individuals with diverse demographic, socioeconomic, and geographic characteristics in China. Eventually, 5388 participants (valid response rate of 60.84%; 52.32% [2819/5388] women; median age 32 years) were included in the analysis. Among the 5388 participants, 687 (12.75%) expressed hesitancy to undergo RAT and 4701 (87.25%) were willing to undergo RAT. Notably, those who were from the central region (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.815, 95% CI 1.441-2.278) and those who received COVID-19 information from traditional media (aOR 1.544, 95% CI 1.279-1.863) were significantly more likely to report hesitancy to undergo RAT (both P<.001). However, those who were women (aOR 0.720, 95% CI 0.599-0.864), were older (aOR 0.982, 95% CI 0.969-0.995), had postgraduate education (aOR 0.612, 95% CI 0.435-0.858), had children (<6 years old) and elders (>60 years old) in the family (aOR 0.685, 95% CI 0.510-0.911), had better knowledge about COVID-19 (aOR 0.942, 95% CI 0.916-0.970), and had mental health disorders (aOR 0.795, 95% CI 0.646-0.975) were less likely to report hesitancy to undergo RAT.
conclusionsHesitancy to undergo SARS-CoV-2 RAT was low among individuals who were not yet infected with SARS-CoV-2. Efforts should be made to improve the awareness and acceptance of RAT among men, younger adults, individuals with a lower education or salary, families without children and elders, and individuals who access COVID-19 information via traditional media. In a reopening world, our study could inform the development of contextualized mass screening strategies in general and the scale-up of RAT in particular, which remains an indispensable option in emergency preparedness.
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.