ArticleBMJ public health2025
Utility, comfort and feasibility of SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic testing integration into routine care: a cross-sectional survey assessing healthcare workers' perspectives in Kenya and Cameroon.
Article in BMJ public health, 2025. 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Integration of SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic testing (SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT) into maternal, neonatal and child health (MNCH), HIV and tuberculosis (TB) clinics may enhance early detection and prevention of COVID-19. We assessed healthcare workers' (HCWs') perceptions of integrating SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT in these clinics in Kenya and Cameroon. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in October 2022 among HCWs in 20 health facilities implementing SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT using two testing models: Screen and Test, screening all attendees and test those eligible, and Test All, screen and test all attendees. HCWs completed a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire exploring their perceptions on utility, comfort and feasibility. Results: A total of 355 HCWs (187 Screen and Test and 168 Test All) were surveyed, including 194 (55%) in MNCH, 123 (34.6%) in HIV and 38 (11%) in TB clinics. Most HCWs found integration useful: 325 (92%) agreed on its use for early identification and treatment of cases, and 318 (95%) agreed on its role in preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Regarding HCW comfort, 342 (96%) felt at ease providing COVID-19 counselling, 204 (57%) felt comfortable performing SARS-CoV-2 testing, and 176 (50%) expressed concerns about the risk of infection during sample collection. HCWs noted that attendees refused testing due to discomfort with the procedure, lack of time and lack of perceived need. In terms of feasibility, 238 (71%) HCWs agreed it was possible to screen all clinic attendees and 113 (32%) expressed challenges integrating testing into routine care. Conclusions: HCWs found the integration of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT useful; most felt comfortable providing counselling but had concerns regarding the safety of testing, particularly sample collection. Patient refusal due to discomfort, time constraints and a lack of perceived need were the main challenges to uptake. Integration strategies should reinforce infection prevention and control and build HCW capacity to improve 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.