ArticleScientific reports2024
Estimating the impact of COVID-19 self-test availability and modifications in test-strategy on overall test uptake using an experimental vignette study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Night-shift work and susceptibility to infectious diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To inform future Dutch COVID-19 testing policies we did an experimental vignette study to investigate whether inclusion of the less reliable lateral flow tests (self-tests) would change test-uptake sufficiently to improve population-level test sensitivity. A representative sample (n = 3,270) participated in a 2-by-2 online experiment to evaluate the effects of test-guidelines including self-testing advice (IV1), and the effects of self-test availability (IV2) on expected test uptake (PCR test, self-test or no test) and sensitivity of the overall test strategy (primary outcome). Across four scenarios, changing test advice did not affect expected testing behaviour. Self-test availability, however, increased the timeliness of testing, the number of people testing, and overall test strategy sensitivity. Based on these findings, we recommend that (national) policy facilitates a supply of self-tests at home, for example through free and pro-active distribution of test-kits during a pandemic. This could substantially enhance the chances of timely detecting and isolating patients.
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.