ArticleMMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report2023
Use of COVIDTests.gov At-Home Test Kits Among Adults in a National Household Probability Sample - United States, 2022.
Article in MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Population-Based Digital Health Interventions to Deliver at-Home COVID-19 Testing: SCALE-UP II Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- Acceptance of SARS-CoV-2 Surveillance Testing Among Patients Receiving Dialysis: A Cluster Randomized Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- A Three-Year Evaluation of COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Patterns Among Homebound Older Adults: Implications for Future Preparedness.American journal of public health · 2026Article
- Real-World Effectiveness and Noninferiority Evaluation and Comparison of Messenger RNA-Based and Protein-Based COVID-19 Vaccines: Protocol for the BEEHIVE Randomized Study With a Hybrid Effectiveness Design.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Applying a NIOSH Industry and Occupation Coding tool to evaluate occupational risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women.Discover public health · 2026Article
- SARS-CoV-2 testing behavior in symptomatic adults in a U.S. national cohort, 2020-2023: influence of exposure risk, susceptibility and healthcare access.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Using RE-AIM to evaluate the implementation of a social marketing and free product distribution project for fentanyl and xylazine test strips in New York State.Harm reduction journal · 2025Article
- The SARS-CoV-2 test scale-up in the USA: an analysis of the number of tests produced and used over time and their modelled impact on the COVID-19 pandemic.The Lancet. Public health · 2025Article
- Perceptions of a Diverse Group of U.S. Women on the Ease of Vaginal Self-Sampling for Cancer Detection.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Clinical Risk and Outpatient Therapy Utilization for COVID-19 in the Medicare Population.JAMA health forum · 2024Article
- Lessons Learned Through Adaptation of a Model Successful During the COVID Pandemic: Expanding HIV Self-testing for Persons Who Use Drugs.Journal of addiction medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
At-home rapid antigen COVID-19 tests were first authorized by the Food and Drug Administration in late 2020 (1-3). In January 2022, the White House launched COVIDTests.gov, which made all U.S. households eligible to receive free-to-the-user at-home test kits distributed by the U.S. Postal Service (2). By May 2022, more than 70 million test kit packages had been shipped to households across the United States (2); however, how these kits were used, and which groups were using them, has not been reported. Data from a national probability survey of U.S. households (COVIDVu), collected during April-May 2022, were used to evaluate awareness about and use of these test kits (4). Most respondent households (93.8%) were aware of the program, and more than one half (59.9%) had ordered kits. Among persons who received testing for COVID-19 during the preceding 6 months, 38.3% used a COVIDTests.gov kit. Among kit users, 95.5% rated the experience as acceptable, and 23.6% reported being unlikely to have tested without the COVIDTests.gov program. Use of COVIDTests.gov kits was similar among racial and ethnic groups (42.1% non-Hispanic Black or African American [Black]; 41.5% Hispanic or Latino [Hispanic]; 34.8% non-Hispanic White [White]; and 53.7% non-Hispanic other races [other races]). Use of other home COVID-19 tests differed by race and ethnicity (11.8% Black, 44.4% Hispanic, 45.8% White, 43.8% other races). Compared with White persons, Black persons were 72% less likely to use other home test kits (adjusted relative risk [aRR] = 0.28; 95% CI = 0.16-0.50). Provision of tests through this well-publicized program likely improved use of COVID-19 home testing and health equity in the United States, particularly among Black persons. National programs to address availability and accessibility of critical health services in a pandemic response have substantial health value.
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.