Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37172319›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2023

Addressing Behavioral Barriers to COVID-19 Testing With Health Literacy-Sensitive eHealth Interventions: Results From 2 National Surveys and 2 Randomized Experiments.

Carissa Bonner, Carys Batcup, Erin Cvejic, Julie Ayre, Kristen Pickles, Tessa Copp, Samuel Cornell, Brooke Nickel, Mustafa Dhahir, Kirsten McCaffery

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Communicating the Imperfect Diagnostic Accuracy of COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Self-Tests: An Online Randomized Experiment.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Co-Designing a Framework for Social Media Health Communication to Young People: A Participatory Research Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  7. 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.

Carissa BonnerSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4797-6460
Carys BatcupSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1896-533X
Erin CvejicSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6043-6071
Julie AyreSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5279-5189
Kristen PicklesSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1621-3217
Tessa CoppSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7801-5884
Samuel CornellSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4944-7826
Brooke NickelSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8100-4278
Mustafa DhahirSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0009-0007-3371-8771
Kirsten McCafferySchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2696-5006
The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPolymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for COVID-19 was crucial in Australia's prevention strategy in the first 2 years of the pandemic, including required testing for symptoms, contact with cases, travel, and certain professions. However, several months into the pandemic, half of Australians were still not getting tested for respiratory symptoms, and little was known about the drivers of and barriers to COVID-19 PCR testing as a novel behavior at that time.

objectiveWe aimed to identify and address COVID-19 testing barriers, and test the effectiveness of multiple eHealth interventions on knowledge for people with varying health literacy levels.

methodsThe intervention was developed in 4 phases. Phase 1 was a national survey conducted in June 2020 (n=1369), in which testing barriers were coded using the capability-opportunity-motivation-behavior framework. Phase 2 was a national survey conducted in November 2020 (n=2034) to estimate the prevalence of testing barriers and health literacy disparities. Phase 3 was a randomized experiment testing health literacy-sensitive written information for a wide range of barriers between February and March 2021 (n=1314), in which participants chose their top 3 barriers to testing to view a tailored intervention. Phase 4 was a randomized experiment testing 2 audio-visual interventions addressing common testing barriers for people with lower health literacy in November 2021, targeting young adults as a key group endorsing misinformation (n=1527).

resultsIn phase 1, barriers were identified in all 3 categories: capability (eg, understanding which symptoms to test for), opportunity (eg, not being able to access a PCR test), and motivation (eg, not believing the symptoms are those of COVID-19). Phase 2 identified knowledge gaps for people with lower versus higher health literacy. Phase 3 found no differences between the intervention (health literacy-sensitive text for top 3 barriers) and control groups. Phase 4 showed that a fact-based animation or a TikTok-style video presenting the same facts in a humorous style increased knowledge about COVID-19 testing compared with government information. However, no differences were found for COVID-19 testing intentions.

conclusionsThis study identified a wide range of barriers to a novel testing behavior, PCR testing for COVID-19. These barriers were prevalent even in a health system where COVID-19 testing was free and widely available. We showed that key capability barriers, such as knowledge gaps, can be improved with simple videos targeting people with lower health literacy. Additional behavior change strategies are required to address motivational issues to support testing uptake. Future research will explore health literacy strategies in the current context of self-administered rapid antigen tests. The findings may inform planning for future COVID-19 variant outbreaks and new public health emergencies where novel testing behaviors are required.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621000876897, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=382318 ; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620001355965, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=380916&isReview=true.

Indexed as

COVID-19Health LiteracyTelemedicineAustraliaCOVID-19 TestingHumansSARS-CoV-2Young Adultbehavior changeCOVID-19health literacyinfectious diseasepublic healthtesting

Identifiers

PMID37172319
PMCPMC10337324
OpenAlexW4376480343

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.