Abstract
Background Diagnostics are critical for preventing COVID-19 transmission, enabling disease management and engagement with care. However, COVID-19 testing uptake remained low in low- and middle- income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) during the recent pandemic, due to issues of supply, access and acceptability. Early studies conducted outside of the region provide insight into uptake of COVID-19 testing, however there has been no systematic research within the region. The aim of this scoping review is to investigate factors influencing uptake of COVID-19 testing in different settings across SSA.
Methods Inclusion criteria was any study employing qualitative or mixed methodologies, addressing uptake of COVID-19 testing conducted in SSA. MEDLINE, PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Africa-Wide Information were searched.Thematic content analysis was conducted across all included articles until saturation was attained.
Results In total 2994 articles were identified and fourteen reviewed. Structural, social, epidemiological, informational, and political elements affected how publics interacted with COVID-19 testing. Coverage was limited by insufficient diagnostic capabilities caused by a shortage of laboratory resources and trained personnel. False information spread through social media led to testing misperceptions and apprehension. Testing hesitancy was ascribed to fear of restrictive measures and the possibility of social harms if positive. Facility-based testing was physically inaccessible and perceived as lacking privacy, whereas self-testing distributed by the community removed lengthy distances and prevented stigma. Perceptions that COVID-19 was not severe and low numbers of confirmed cases in comparison to other settings undermined public urgency for testing. Low testing frequency led to low-rate assumptions, which in turn generated denial and othering narratives. Politicians’ acceptance or denial of COVID-19 affected the mobilization of the health system, and their model actions—such as testing openly—promoted public confidence and involvement in interventions.
Conclusions This review emphasizes the necessity of strong political commitments to enhancing health systems for future pandemic preparedness. Response plans should consider contextual elements that affect how people react to interventions and perceive health emergencies. Community-driven self-testing distribution could enhance the uptake of diagnostics through addressing socio-economic constraints impacting facility-delivered testing.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Yes
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This investigation did not seek specific ethics approval because it analysed secondary data without involving primary data collection with human subjects. However, all the country-specific projects that it was part of received individual ethical approvals from in-country, the London School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine, the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, and the WHO (S1).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data underlying this research were peer reviewed articles accessed through the internet. We have included in the submission notes from NVIVO coding together with to the articles that were included and analysed for the scoping review.
