ArticleThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2025
Uptake, Acceptability, and Results of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Testing in Community Settings in Cameroon.
Article in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Operational Research to Support Rapid Evidence-Based Responses to Outbreaks: Learnings from COVID-19.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mass gathering event restrictions were part of mitigation measures during the COVID-19 pandemic that were lifted as prevalence decreased and after vaccination rollout. We explored SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic test acceptability and positivity in community settings in Cameroon. In August-October 2022, community workers sensitized and referred individuals for COVID-19 testing to nearby testing points in Douala and Yaoundé. Participants consented to SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic testing, a survey, or both components. We describe the positivity rate, COVID-19-related history, and Likert-scale testing perceptions. Factors associated with testing acceptance were analyzed using logistic regression. Overall, 20.5% (2,449/11,945) of sensitized individuals visited testing points, and 1,864 (76.1%) were enrolled; 50.6% accepted the survey and testing (46.0% accepted survey only). Seven (0.7%) of 1,006 individuals tested positive. Most (71.8%; 1,292/1,800) considered community testing more accessible than hospital-based testing. Individuals accepting versus refusing testing differed in perceived COVID-19 risk (67%, 49%; P <0.001), belief in accurate test results (79%, 47%; P <0.001), and ability to test easily (96%, 55%; P <0.001). Males (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.26 [1.04-1.53]) and those over 50 years (aOR: 1.9 [1.4-2.7]), with symptoms (aOR: 1.80 [1.30-2.50]), and at least partial vaccination (aOR: 0.76 [0.58-0.99]) were significantly associated with test acceptance. Refusal reasons included lack of perceived need for testing (33.8%) and testing discomfort (26.3%). Although community-based testing was generally perceived as important, actual testing uptake was low. In future pandemics, community testing should be optimized by addressing misinformation, offering alternative testing modalities for greater comfort, creating demand, and tailoring approaches to maximize testing uptake.
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.