Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38336852›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Falsification of home rapid antigen lateral flow tests during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Devashish Ray, Raenhha Dhami, Jan Lecouturier, Laura J McGowan, Aritra Mukherjee, Ivo Vlaev, Michael P Kelly, Falko F Sniehotta

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Devashish RayNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science-Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK. devashish.ray@newcastle.ac.uk.
Raenhha DhamiNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science-Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Jan LecouturierNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science-Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Laura J McGowanNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science-Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Aritra MukherjeeBiostatistics Research Group, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Ivo VlaevNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science-Behavioural Science Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Michael P KellyNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science-Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Falko F SniehottaNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science-Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Newcastle University · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

NIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science PR-PRU1217-20501
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, lateral flow tests (LFTs) were used to regulate access to work, education, social activities, and travel. However, falsification of home LFT results was a concern. Falsification of test results during an ongoing pandemic is a sensitive issue. Consequently, respondents may not answer truthfully to questions about LFT falsification behaviours (FBs) when asked directly. Indirect questioning techniques such as the Extended Crosswise model (ECWM) can provide more reliable prevalence estimates of sensitive behaviors than direct questioning. Here we report the prevalence of LFT FBs in a representative sample in England (n = 1577) using direct questioning (DQ) and the ECWM. We examine the role of demographic and psychological variables as predictors of LFT FBs. We show that the prevalence estimates of the FBs in the DQ condition were significantly lower than the ECWM estimates, e.g., reporting a negative result without conducting a test: 5.7% DQ vs 18.4% ECWM. Moral norms, subjective norms, anticipated regret, perception of risk to self, and trust in government predicted some of the FBs. Indirect questioning techniques can help provide more realistic and higher quality data about compliance with behavioural regulations to government and public health agencies.

Indexed as

COVID-19Educational StatusEnglandHumansPandemicsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID38336852
PMCPMC10858045
OpenAlexW4391691792

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.