ArticlePLOS global public health2026
Acceptability and usability of COVID-19 antigen self-test in populations under socioeconomic vulnerability in Brazil: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2026. 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.
- Usabilidade de autoteste de antígeno para COVID-19: fatores associados e desafios relatados.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid diagnostic self-tests have emerged as effective tools for identifying and controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2. However, little is known about their acceptability and usability among populations under socioeconomic vulnerability globally. We aimed to evaluate the acceptability and usability of a COVID-19 antigen self-test among persons living in Salvador and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. In this cross-sectional study (January-May 2023), participants used a COVID-19 antigen self-test in a simulated real-world setting, guided by an instructional video. Usability was assessed through two main outcomes: comprehension of instructions and proper execution of self-test (Poisson regression model); and accuracy in interpretation of self-test results (Cohen's kappa). Acceptability was evaluated based on willingness to reuse the self-test, user experience, and recommendation to others. Among 437 participants, most were women (65.7%), self-identified as Black/Pardo (mixed-race) (81.5%), aged 35 + years (65.7%), had a household income ≤ USD 470 (70.0%) and had completed secondary education (46.2%). Despite some procedural difficulties, most participants obtained valid results (88.1%), higher in Salvador (95.2%) than in Rio de Janeiro (81.7%) (p < 0.001). Participants showed difficulty interpreting test results, particularly inconclusive with a positive mark (32.9% correct) and faint positive markers (25.2% correct). Accuracy in interpretation was 89.6%, with moderate to substantial inter-rater agreement (Cohen's kappa = 0.56 overall, reaching 0.78 among participants aged 35-44 years). Participants with older age, lower education level and self-identified as men had lower likelihood of obtaining valid results in adjusted model, and increased difficulties in test setup and interpretation. Over 95% of participants were willing to reuse and recommended the self-test. This study revealed high acceptability and usability of the COVID-19 antigen self-test among populations under socioeconomic vulnerability in Brazil. However, misinterpretation poses public and individual health risks, underscoring the need of simplified, multimodal and accessible instructions.
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.