Perceptions on undertaking regular asymptomatic self-testing for COVID-19 using lateral flow tests: A qualitative study of university students and staff

Study recruitment

The ‘Feasibility and Acceptability of community COVID-19 Testing Strategies’ (FACTS) study was a mixed methods cohort study conducted at the [X]. It was approved by the [X] in October 2020. X University students and staff were invited to participate in the study through a number of departments via an email invitation, providing information on the study including a participant information sheet (PIS). Participants who agreed to participate were required to download the ‘CoronaVirus health Monitor (CVm)-Health’ app developed by X. This bespoke app recorded consent to the study, symptoms, test results, an upload of a photograph of the completed test, and responses to a one-item acceptability question. Participants were invited to a training session before undertaking weekly testing.

LFT training

The email invitation also contained a 5-minute video explaining how to prepare to test, perform the swab, extract the sample, test the sample and read the results. The study used the Innova Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test Kit (Innova Medical Group, US) ¹⁸. Participants received either face-to-face or online training. Details of training are reported elsewhere¹⁹. Face-to-face training was carried out at participants’ x [anonymised place] or department. Participants were talked through the aims of the study, followed by a demonstration of the swab, sample preparation, recording and interpreting the test result. Following the demonstration, participants performed the test, with support from the trainers if required. When 30 minutes had elapsed since applying the sample to the test device, participants were asked to interpret the result, record this on the app, and photograph the result using the app. The trainers visually checked each test result and confirmed whether the participant’s interpretation of the result was correct. For a small number of participants, live on-line training was offered to participants who collected test kits in advance. This was delivered by two trainers via Zoom and involved similar procedures to the face-to-face training. The session was interactive so participants could ask questions.

The PIS informed participants that rapid tests are not as reliable as, or a replacement for, a PCR test. In the event of a positive test result, participants were advised to self-isolate and book a PCR test through the University COVID-19 testing service; in the event of a negative test, participants were advised to follow normal infection prevention procedures. This information was repeated during the training where participants were also told that there is limited evidence on the accuracy of the test in asymptomatic people. At the time of the study the Innova test had not received MHRA authorisation for asymptomatic testing, nor for self-testing, and the test use was under research ethics.

While the original plan was to provide all participants with the testing kits to take home, this was not possible in the initial stages of the study. That meant that participants who joined early in the study had to attend their work or study site for testing for several weeks prior to the ‘take-home’ kit being available.

Interview recruitment

At the time of study enrolment, participants were asked whether they would be interested in being contacted about taking part in an interview on their experiences of testing. A selection of participants who agreed were invited, using purposive sampling, in order to obtain variation in university role (student or staff) and department/[anonymised place]

Data collection

A semi-structured interview guide was developed based on the primary research questions and informed by the existing literature on COVID-19 testing in order to elicit key determinants of behaviour (Appendix 1). Participants were asked about their views and experiences of using the tests, their reasons for taking part in the study, barriers and facilitators to undertaking regular testing, trust in test results and intentions to act on a positive result. After obtaining consent, interviews were conducted over the telephone or online by an experienced qualitative researcher and audio recorded. Interviews continued until data indicated saturation²⁰. We conducted rapid data collection and analysis concurrently.

As part of the wider study, we also conducted a survey examining participants’ views of regular testing. The survey consisted of 13 questions (Appendix 2) and a free text comment box. The survey was sent to all study participants via email. Based on the free text comments, we created an initial framework consisting of nine categories that captured key areas of interest. Using the framework, detailed summaries of interview data, including verbatim quotes, were made directly from the audio recording after each interview^21,22. These were further changed and then used to create themes and sub-themes. Throughout the process, the qualitative researchers (MW and STC) met regularly to identify key patterns in the data and to compare and contrast emerging findings. This method is deemed a pragmatic and efficient approach to collect and analyse data rapidly during a public health emergency^21,22.

Theme 1: Perceived benefits to regular testing

Participants reported three main benefits of taking part in the study and having access to regular self-testing. Firstly, they wanted to check regularly whether or not they were infected with SARS-CoV-2, to reduce their fear of unknowingly infecting others, which was a concern they mentioned frequently. For some participants this extra knowledge was related to their perceived risk of becoming infected, and access to regular testing was particularly important for reassurance.

I live in a densely populated area so I am exposed to risk a lot. When I began testing, I was regularly travelling by train […] so I kept at it because I was in a relatively risky situation. [P15, Staff, Interview]

In addition, participants wanted to know if they were infected so they could take appropriate action, i.e. self-isolate and thus minimise the risk of spreading the virus.

Secondly, some students highlighted that deciding to self-test with a LFT was perceived as a personal choice and therefore more acceptable than undertaking NHS or university testing when experiencing symptoms. The university protocol for symptomatic testing required everyone in the household to enter into isolation at the time of getting a test rather than at the time of getting a positive result. As participants explained, peer pressure may prevent people from doing NHS or university testing.

Getting an NHS test is such an ordeal and in a university context, there is pressure not to get tested because getting that test puts your whole house into a lockdown. This test removes barriers […] You do it as a personal choice and not something where you get permission from the whole household to get tested [P2, Student, Interview]

Finally, all interviewees wanted to support COVID-19 research to contribute to fighting the pandemic. Some hoped that the study would provide evidence for the value of asymptomatic testing, which if implemented widely, would help ease the restrictions.

Theme 2: Perceptions of test accuracy and its implications

Theme 3: Extent of confidence in ability to do the tests

The majority of participants felt that the training they received enabled them to feel confident about doing the tests. Watching the video followed by a face-to-face interactive training session was reported to be beneficial. In contrast, any discrepancies between what was in the video and the face-to-face training, for example in relation to how to prepare the test (which was due to the fact that video used was prepared for a different university), was confusing and, at times, decreased confidence in the accuracy of the test.

While doing tests repeatedly increased participants’ confidence, a number of participants were still unsure whether they were doing the test correctly, especially the tonsil swab. Some questioned whether an incorrect swab would make test less reliable.

I have very strong gag reflex so I am unable to reach my tonsils. I was told by the nurse: ‘just try your best’, which was not helpful. I have not been able to get an answer on whether it is important to swab the tonsils and whether it is a big problem or not. [P8, Staff, Interview]

Participants who were unsure where the tonsils were suggested that a more realistic picture of tonsils (rather than a cartoon) might be helpful.

Doing the tests at home was easier as participants had access to mirrors rather than having to rely on their phone cameras to do the test on site. When doing tests at home, having a card which summarised the instructions was also suggested, as instead participants had to re-watch the video every time they were unsure about some aspect of the self-testing. In contrast, doing tests on site was perceived as helpful by some participants as they could ask other participants for tips and check whether they “were doing it right”, which they found reassuring. Also, seeing other people experiencing physical sensations such as watering eyes as a result of doing the test, was helpful in knowing that this is what one can expect. However, test preparation on site was difficult as participants reported having to prepare the tests on small tables.

Theme 4: Barriers and facilitators to regular testing

All interviewees experienced swabbing as uncomfortable, at least to a certain extent, with some reporting having a strong gag reflex and testing causing sneezing or watering eyes. However, most participants highlighted that these sensations were temporary, manageable and did not decrease their motivation to continue self-testing and were a “small price to pay” for getting reassurance on whether they were infected (as described in theme 1).

Participants who were able to take a number of testing kits home seemed to see testing as relatively easy to fit tests into their weekly routine. In contrast, for participants who did not get packs to take home and who had to go to their [anonymised place] or department to self-test, it was an inconvenience and caused frustration, especially as testing took place over several weeks. This was especially the case for staff.

While training in a group was perceived as beneficial (as described in theme 2), some participants were also concerned about the safety of getting tested on site, around other people, especially if they had not been going out much.

Also, though this has now been resolved, it was quite frustrating that we were expected to conduct the test in person in a lecture hall with many other students for the first few weeks, as this was the biggest personal risk I took each week in terms of COVID exposure [P10, Student, Survey].

Some staff participants found the experience of self-testing in a group awkward and embarrassing when being with other colleagues. Others commented that being with people they knew provided a nice sense of camaraderie if “they were all having a laugh”. Finally, participants wanted a reminder to do the test when it was due each week, and some felt this could provide additional encouragement.

Comparison with existing literature

Participants in our study wanted to have regular testing to reduce their fear of accidentally infecting their family, friends or other people in their community, while also wanting to contribute to fighting the pandemic. This is in line with the Liverpool COVID-SMART study, which found that people signed up to have a test as they wanted to protect their families, friends as well as local hospitals and NHS workers and saw taking part as “the right thing to do” ⁷. Only one study in a university setting explored these issues, albeit involving RT-PCR tests, and also found that “helping to keep the campus safe”, “contributing to the national effort to control the virus” and “being involved in COVID-19 research” were the top three reasons for taking part¹⁷. Further analysis also revealed that the number of returned tests was positively correlated with increased worry about friends and family contracting COVID-19¹⁷. Our study also highlights the importance of the perceived benefits but in the context of regular rather than one-off testing and using LFTs. It also suggests that asymptomatic testing using LFTs may be perceived as more accessible and acceptable for students, in comparison to NHS or University testing, which has not been identified before.

Importantly, our study found that while most participants understood that the test was “not 100% accurate”, estimates of test accuracy varied greatly among participants. Most reported that negative test results did not change their behaviour but it did provide them with reassurance to engage with permitted activities, which they had planned to participate in. However, some participants felt reassured by the test and reported making decisions involving contact with other people, when they would not have done otherwise. Previous studies have only explored these issues for antibody testing²³. The survey conducted as part of the Liverpool COVID-SMART study indicated that some participants had concerns about test accuracy⁷ and one study in a university setting found that 79.6% of participants were confident in the outcome of their PCR test¹². Our study highlights that people’s understanding of the extent to which LFTs are accurate varied, with potential implications for their behaviour.

It is important to note that no participants who answered the survey or who took part in an interview tested positive for COVID-19 during the study. Participants indicated that they would trust a positive result and self-isolate as advised although this may reflect socially desirable responses. It is notable that none of the participants indicated they would have any difficulty in self-isolating if necessary, which is positive for any future roll out in universities but again reflects that this population is not representative of the general population, where only around 20% of symptomatic people might complete self-isolation²⁴.

Students reported negative peer pressure when wanting to engage NHS or university testing when experiencing symptoms as this would result in those peers being forced to self-isolate. Having access to the LFTs removed these barriers for some, allowing them to the personal choice to engage with testing. Therefore when considering a mass testing system it is important to take into account that one process may not be effective in reaching all those who would otherwise be willing to engage.

Finally, while our participants described swabbing as being uncomfortable, they felt that the perceived benefits outweighed the burden of doing the tests. Having access to a number of tests which they could do at home made it easier for participants to take part, while doing the testing on site provided an opportunity for feedback on how well participants were doing the test but magnified safety concerns. Misinformation related to perception of the risk of infection at test sites, and the need to have physical contact with centre staff, have been described before¹⁷.

The study findings can be partially explained by Protection Motivation Theory¹⁶. Qualitative data from this study highlight that from the PMT perspective, a negative test reassured people that the protective behaviours they had engaged with previously had been effective. Regular testing meant interviewees felt they had regular feedback about whether they were infected. They felt that the costs (such as time, physical sensations) of undertaking the test were small and mostly felt confident in conducting the test. For a minority however, lack of information or misunderstandings related to the accuracy of the test seemed to affect their coping appraisal as it gave them more confidence that they were not infected, which lead them to engage with additional activities, which they had previously avoided, involving contact with other people.

Strengths and limitations

This is the first qualitative study examining views and experiences of students and staff of regular asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing in a university setting using LFTs. It highlights a number of key issues related to acceptability and feasibility of regular testing as well as its behavioural implications. We note some limitations. The mean number of tests conducted by each interview and survey participant was higher than the mean number of tests in non-interviewed participants, so our sample may over-represent those who continued to test regularly. Additionally, the FACTS participants were university student and staff volunteers, whose motivation to participate and perceived benefits may be different from those in the wider university population, and other non-university settings. The majority of interview participants were also staff. We adopted rapid qualitative analysis to aid identification of key issues but full transcription of qualitative data could have minimised the potential for errors of interpretation. However, we discussed interpretation of data on a regular basis with other members of the team and extensive notes have been made after each interview.

Implications for policy and practice

Our study indicates that messages highlighting the benefits for family, friends and society in identifying asymptomatic cases and contributing to fighting the pandemic and ultimately lifting lockdowns might be beneficial for encouraging regular use of LFTs. However, these need to be coupled with clear and transparent communication about accuracy of LFTs. In context diagnostic accuracy studies are therefore a pre-requisite.

Information about accuracy of tests is important but given that the same reported accuracy of the test might be perceived by different people as more or less favourable, it is crucial that this is framed within clear messages on what it means for an individual’s behaviour (i.e. the need to follow COVID-19 safety measures). This is especially important for testing in workplaces or schools (as currently planned in the UK⁶) where a negative test may allow people to return to their study or workplace and will consequently involve contact with other people. Advice that supports people to continue physical distancing, hand hygiene and mask wearing in the context of a negative test is crucial. The timing of providing this information is important, as well as the need to provide clear information about test accuracy in advance, and repeated, to prevent people creating a mental model which is then difficult to change²⁵. This may also be relevant in the context of more extensive vaccine rollout, as some have raised concerns that vaccination may encourage people to ignore public health messages²⁶. Recent reports of implementation of asymptomatic testing in local authorities in England showed limited communication about these issues. A study involving a search of local authority websites found that 47% did not explain the limitations of LFTs or that people should continue following safety measures and restrictions despite a negative result and highlighted a lack of standard messaging on test accuracy²⁷.

When scaling up regular asymptomatic testing, it is important to also consider potential concerns about convenience of testing, and people’s confidence and ability to do the testing. In settings where people may be tested on site, safety and convenience may be important to consider. Concerns about physical sensations also need to be addressed. Whereas, for those who are sent tests to take at home, clear information on testing procedures and a reminder to take the test will be of importance. We also found that training materials provided should mimic what is delivered to participants face-to-face, as when trying to learn about and understand how to use these new devices any deviation in the two can lead to confusion and uncertainty.