Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39078819›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2024

Diagnostic testing preferences can help inform future public health response efforts: Global insights from an international survey.

Leah Salzano, Nithya Narayanan, Emily R Tobik, Sumaira Akbarzada, Yanjun Wu, Sarah Megiel, Brittany Choate, Anne L Wyllie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Leah SalzanoDepartment of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-6265-9658
Nithya NarayananDepartment of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9809-504X
Emily R TobikDepartment of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0682-3695
Sumaira AkbarzadaDepartment of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.
Yanjun WuDepartment of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8994-6534
Sarah MegielDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.
Brittany ChoateDepartment of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.
Anne L WyllieDepartment of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6015-0279

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Public perception regarding diagnostic sample types as well as personal experiences can influence willingness to test. As such, public preferences for specific sample type(s) should be used to inform diagnostic and surveillance testing programs to improve public health response efforts. To understand where preferences lie, we conducted an international survey regarding the sample types used for SARS-CoV-2 tests. A Qualtrics survey regarding SARS-CoV-2 testing preferences was distributed via social media and email. The survey collected preferences regarding sample methods and key demographic data. Python was used to analyze survey responses. From March 30th to June 15th, 2022, 2,094 responses were collected from 125 countries. Participants were 55% female and predominantly aged 25-34 years (27%). Education and employment were skewed: 51% had graduate degrees, 26% had bachelor's degrees, 27% were scientists/researchers, and 29% were healthcare workers. By rank sum analysis, the most preferred sample type globally was the oral swab, followed by saliva, with parents/guardians preferring saliva-based testing for children. Respondents indicated a higher degree of trust in PCR testing (84%) vs. rapid antigen testing (36%). Preferences for self- or healthcare worker-collected sampling varied across regions. This international survey identified a preference for oral swabs and saliva when testing for SARS-CoV-2. Notably, respondents indicated that if they could be assured that all sample types performed equally, then saliva was preferred. Overall, survey responses reflected the region-specific testing experiences during the COVID-19. Public preferences should be considered when designing future response efforts to increase utilization, with oral sample types (either swabs or saliva) providing a practical option for large-scale, accessible diagnostic testing.

Identifiers

PMID39078819
PMCPMC11288416

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.