Abstract
Background There has been an increased interest from governments in implementing mass testing for COVID-19 of asymptomatic individuals using Lateral Flow Tests (LFTs). Successful implementation of such programmes depends on several factors, including feasibility, acceptability and how people act on test results. There is a paucity of studies examining these issues.
Objective We aimed to examine experiences of university students and staff with experience of regular asymptomatic self-testing using LFTs, and their subsequent behaviours.
Methods We invited people who were participating in a ‘weekly testing’ feasibility study. We conducted semi-structured remote interviews between December 2020 and January 2021. Additional qualitative data from a survey were also analysed. Data were analysed thematically.
Results We interviewed 18 and surveyed 214 participants. Participants were motivated to regularly self-test as they wanted to know whether or not they were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Most reported that a negative test result did not change their behaviour but it did provide them with reassurance to engage with permitted activities. In contrast, some participants reported making decisions about visiting other people when they would not have done so otherwise, because they felt reassured by a negative test result. Participants valued the test training but some participants still doubted their ability to carry out the test. Participants were concerned about safety of attending test sites with lots of people and reported home testing was most convenient.
Conclusions If governments want to increase uptake of LFT use, clear messages highlighting the benefits of regular testing for family, friends and society in identifying asymptomatic cases are needed. This should be coupled with transparent communication about accuracy of LFTs and how to act on either a positive or negative result. Concerns about safety, convenience of testing, and ability to do tests need to be addressed to ensure successful scaling up asymptomatic testing.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
n/a
Funding Statement
No external funding received. TF and LM receive funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Community Healthcare MedTech and In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. TF receives funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
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:
Oxford Research Ethics Committee in October 2020 (reference R72896/RE001).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data are not publicly available due to their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.
