ArticleBMJ open2024
Access to and utilisation of COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) among the general population in Phnom Penh: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesGlobally, there is a lack of evidence regarding access to and utilisation of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs). This might hinder public health interventions to increase testing. We conducted a survey to understand access to and utilisation of COVID-19 Ag-RDT among residents in Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
designThis is a representative household survey using linear regression models with random effects to account for clustering and a logistic model with random effects to assess factors associated with Ag-RDT access.
settingWe conducted the study in 10 villages in Phnom Penh between August and mid-September 2022.
participantsWe enrolled one member per household (n=280), aged between 18 and 65 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: Both access and utilisation were defined at the individual level (self-reports). We defined access as having undergone COVID-19 rapid testing within 6 months and utilisation as having administered this test (to themselves or others) within 12 months, prior to the study interview.
resultsIn a clustering-adjusted linear model, access to Ag-RDTs among the general population from the 10 villages was 34% (n=95) and utilisation was 28% (n=77). Price and advice from the pharmacist were commonly reported to be the main selection criteria for Ag-RDTs, with 41% (n=111) and 62% (n=175), respectively. In the logistic model, those with higher educational attainment were more likely to have access to the Ag-RDT compared with those with lower education levels (adjusted OR4.42, 95% CI 1.82 to 10.74).
conclusionsUnfamiliarity with Ag-RDT tests and low education levels negatively affect access and utilisation of Ag-RDTs among the general population in Phnom Penh.
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.