Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37386558›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Were SARS-CoV-2 self-tests used for their intended purpose? The experience in Belgium.

Yves Lafort, Laura Cornelissen, Dieter Van Cauteren, Barbara Verboven, Sabine Drieskens, Simon Couvreur, Lize Hermans, Koen Straetmans, Tinne Lernout

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  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

9 authors.

Yves LafortDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium. yves.lafort@telenet.be.
Laura CornelissenDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.
Dieter Van CauterenDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.
Barbara VerbovenAssociation of Pharmacists Belgium, Brussels, Belgium.
Sabine DrieskensDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.
Simon CouvreurDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.
Lize HermansDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.
Koen StraetmansAssociation of Pharmacists Belgium, Brussels, Belgium.
Tinne LernoutDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelf-testing has been promoted as a means of increasing COVID-19 test coverage. In Belgium, self-testing was recommended as a complement to the formal, provider-administered indications, such as out of courtesy before meeting others and when feared to be infected. More than a year after the introduction of self-testing their place in the test strategy was evaluated.

methodsWe assessed trends in the number of self-tests sold, the number of positive self-tests reported, the proportion sold self-tests/total tests, and the proportion of all positive tests that were confirmed self-tests. To evaluate the reason why people use self-tests, we used the results of two online surveys among members of the general population: one among 27,397 people, held in April 2021, and one among 22,354 people, held in December 2021.

resultsThe use of self-tests became substantial from end 2021 onwards. In the period mid-November 2021 - end-of-June 2022, the average proportion of reported sold self-tests to all COVID-19 tests was 37% and 14% of all positive tests were positive self-tests. In both surveys, the main reported reasons for using a self-test were having symptoms (34% of users in April 2021 and 31% in December 2021) and after a risk contact (27% in both April and December). Moreover, the number of self-tests sold, and the number of positive self-tests reported closely followed the same trend as the provider-administered tests in symptomatic people and high risk-contacts, which reinforces the hypothesis that they were mainly used for these two indications.

conclusionsFrom end 2021 onwards, self-testing covered a significant part of COVID-19 testing in Belgium, which increased without doubt the testing coverage. However, the available data seem to indicate that self-testing was mostly used for indications outside of official recommendations. If and how this affected the control of the epidemic remains unknown.

Indexed as

COVID-19BelgiumCOVID-19 TestingEmotionsHumansSARS-CoV-2BelgiumSARS-CoV-2 testingSelf-testing

Identifiers

PMID37386558
PMCPMC10311765

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.