ReviewJournal of public health in Africa2025
Factors influencing uptake of diagnostic test interventions for SARS-CoV-2: A qualitative review.
Review in Journal of public health in Africa, 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.
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
Background: Diagnostic tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) may be performed based on symptomatic presentation or for screening of asymptomatic persons. Testing can limit spread by enabling rapid identification of cases leading to containment measures. However, views regarding diagnostic test as a containment intervention vary across different settings. Aim: To synthesise the findings of qualitative studies on the perceptions and factors influencing the uptake of diagnostic test interventions for SARS-CoV-2. Setting: Healthcare facilities, care homes, communities including households. Method: We searched MEDLINE database and the (WHO) SARS-CoV-2 Research database from 01 January 2020 to 06 September 2022. Qualitative data were synthesised thematically while data for barriers and facilitators were synthesised using the SURE framework. The GRADE-CERQual approach was used to assess the confidence in each review finding, while the ENTREQ checklist was used to report the QES. The quality of included studies was assessed with the CASP tool. Results: Twenty two studies were included for QES. Two were conducted in the health facility setting, 2 in care homes, and 18 in the community. Twenty of the studies came from high-income countries, 2 from low- and middle-income countries. In all, 13 analytical and 31 descriptive themes of low to moderate quality evidence emerged; mainly around fear of contracting COVID-19, test procedure and socio-economic implications of a positive test result. Conclusion: Low to moderate quality evidence of barriers to uptake of diagnostic test were largely due to misconceptions about the interventions. Contribution: Sensitising and engaging communities and stakeholders in the healthcare system, will help mitigate the fear barrier and enhance policy coordination.
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.