ArticleGlobal health research and policy2023
Factors associated with the utilization of diagnostic tools among countries with different income levels during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Global health research and policy, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychiatric symptoms of long COVID among adults: observational case-control study in Johannesburg, South Africa.BJPsych open · 2026Article
- Prioritising Data Quality Governance for AI in Prostate Cancer: A Methodological Proof-of-Concept Study Using Neural Networks for Risk Stratification.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Estimating the impact of decreasing vaccination response times for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases in low- and middle-income countries.BMC global and public health · 2026Article
- Toward optimal disease surveillance with graph-based active learning.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDisparities in the utilization of essential medical products are a key factor contributing to inequality in health outcomes. We aimed to analyze the trends and influencing factors in using Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnostic tools and disparities in countries with different income levels.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study using open and publicly available data sources. Data were mainly collected from the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, "Our World in Data," and the Global Burden of Disease databases. Negative binomial regression model and generalized linear mixed model were employed to investigate into five sets of factors associated with the usage of diagnostics: severity of COVID-19, socioeconomic status, health status, medical service capacity, and rigidity of response. Dominance analysis was utilized to compare the relative importance of these factors. The Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition was used to decompose the difference in the usage of diagnostics between countries.
resultsThe total COVID-19 testing rate ranged from 5.13 to 22,386.63 per 1000 people from March 2020 to October 2022 and the monthly testing rate declined dramatically from January 2022 to October 2022 (52.37/1000 vs 5.91/1000).. The total testing rate was primarily associated with socioeconomic status (37.84%), with every 1 standard deviation (SD) increase in Gross Domestic Product per capita and the proportion of people aged ≥ 70, the total testing rate increased by 88% and 31%. And so is the medical service capacity (33.66%), with every 1 SD increase in health workforce density, the number increased by 38%. The monthly testing rate was primarily associated with socioeconomic status (34.72%) and medical service capacity (28.67%), and the severity of COVID-19 (21.09%). The average difference in the total testing rates between high-income and low-income countries was 2726.59 per 1000 people, and 2493.43 (91.45%) of the differences could be explained through the five sets of factors.
conclusionsRedoubling the efforts, such as local manufacturing, regulatory reliance, and strengthening the community health workforce and laboratory capacity in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) cannot be more significant for ensuring sustainable and equitable access to diagnostic tools during pandemic.
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.