ArticlePublic health challenges2024
Exploring School Staff's Perceptions About Implementing Saliva-Based Testing.
Article in Public health challenges, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To investigate the feasibility of conducting COVID-19 testing in kindergarten-grade 12 schools, saliva-based testing was implemented in five schools. The purpose of this study was to understand staff's perspectives of the barriers and facilitators to conducting saliva-based testing in their settings. Methods: Thirty-three school staff who worked in five target schools were interviewed in the summer of 2021. Participants were recruited from June-August 2021 via a flyer that was distributed through email and school-affiliated social media and websites, and word-of-mouth. Semi-structured interviews were conducted over Zoom by a trained interviewer; interviews were audio recorded and auto transcribed using this Zoom feature. Constant comparative analysis and emergent coding were used to analyze the data. Results: The majority of participants had positive experiences with conducting saliva-based testing during school hours. Participants reported that saliva-based testing did not interrupt their school routine because (1) the testing was simple and quick, (2) the testing schedule was consistent and organized, and (3) school staff maintained open lines of communication. Barriers to implementing the testing were as follows: (1) obtaining parental consent, (2) not being allowed to drink or eat an hour before testing, and (3) struggling to provide enough saliva for testing. Participants suggested the following strategies to facilitate testing in schools: being more proactive, giving families fewer things to sign (i.e., consent forms), improving communication, adding needed consents to the school registration process, using social media, and increasing community outreach. Conclusion: As schools weigh the benefits and the risks of closing for extended periods of time versus remaining open for in-person learning, saliva-based testing is a feasible and efficient way to support programs in this decision-making process. This approach can be used in future pandemics and in areas with outbreaks or poor vaccine coverage.
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.