ArticleBMC public health2026
Feasibility and acceptability of COVID-19 self-testing offered through community screening posts in Mozambique: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCOVID-19 self-testing is a key strategy for point-of-care testing and COVID-19 outbreak management to identify people infected with SARS-CoV-2 in low- and middle-income settings. We assessed the feasibility and acceptability of healthcare worker-supervised COVID-19 self-tests at community bi-directional screening posts for COVID-19 and tuberculosis in urban and peri-urban areas in southern Mozambique.
methodsBetween May and August 2023, Persons presenting with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 and those at risk of COVID-19 infection were eligible for self-testing. We collected and described a cascade of care and survey data from people who completed self-testing and conducted logistic regression to assess predictors of the likelihood of using the self-test again (likely/not likely). We invited a subset of clients and supervising healthcare workers to semi-structured in-depth interviews, and we analysed their transcripts using a thematic approach.
resultsWe invited 382 people for self-testing, of whom 369 (96.6%) clients performed the self-test. 328 (88.9%) were willing to use the self-test again when experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, and 332 (90%) declared to accept its use as a screening measure for COVID-19 contacts. Regarding its affordability, clients perceived self-testing as an acceptable strategy following its accessibility, comfort of use, and quick results. The feasibility of self-testing requires instructional videos in local languages, and implementation should be done through community channels. All supervising healthcare workers perceived self-testing as an important tool for increasing testing accessibility, early diagnosis, reduction of overcrowding and COVID-19 infection risk in healthcare facilities.
conclusionsCOVID-19 self-testing is acceptable and feasible if provided with linguistically and culturally appropriate health education and instructions at an affordable price. Self-test delivery packages and systems should be developed that could be adapted to existing or future self-tests for infectious diseases or other non-communicable diseases.
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.