Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Public's understanding of swab test results for SARS-CoV-2: an online behavioural experiment during the April 2020 lockdown.
Pighin, Stefania; Tentori, Katya.
  • Pighin S; Center for Mind/Brain Sciences, University of Trento, Rovereto (TN), Italy.
  • Tentori K; Center for Mind/Brain Sciences, University of Trento, Rovereto (TN), Italy katya.tentori@unitn.it.
BMJ Open ; 11(1): e043925, 2021 01 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1033097
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

Although widespread testing for SARS-CoV-2 is in place, little is known about how well the public understands these results. We aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the general public's grasp of the accuracy and significance of the results of the swab test.

DESIGN:

Web-based behavioural experiment.

SETTING:

Italy during the April 2020 lockdown.

PARTICIPANTS:

566 Italian residents. MAIN OUTCOME

MEASURES:

Participants' estimates of the SARS-CoV-2 prevalence; the predictive and diagnostic accuracy of the test; the behavioural impact of (positive vs negative) test results; the perceived usefulness of a short-term repetition of the test following positive or negative results; and rankings of causes for false positives and false negatives.

RESULTS:

Most participants considered the swab test useful (89.6%) and provided predictive values consistent with their estimates of test diagnostic accuracy and infection prevalence (67.0%). Participants acknowledged the effects of symptomatic status and geographical location on prevalence (all p<0.001) but failed to take this information into account when estimating the positive or negative predictive value. Overall, test specificity was underestimated (91.5%, 95% CI 90.2% to 92.8%); test sensitivity was overestimated (89.7%, 95% CI 88.3% to 91.0%). Positive results were evaluated as more informative than negative ones (91.6, 95% CI 90.2 to 93.1 and 41.0, 95% CI 37.9 to 44.0, respectively, p<0.001); a short-term repetition of the test was considered more useful after a positive than a negative result (62.7, 95% CI 59.6 to 65.7 and 47.2, 95% CI 44.4 to 50.0, respectively, p=0.013). Human error and technical characteristics were assessed as more likely to be the causes of false positives (p<0.001); the level of the viral load as the cause of false negatives (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS:

While some aspects of the swab for SARS-CoV-2 are well grasped, others are not and may have a strong bearing on the general public's health and well-being. The obtained findings provide policymakers with a detailed picture that can guide the design and implementation of interventions for improving efficient communication with the general public as well as adherence to precautionary behaviour.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Nasopharynx / Clinical Laboratory Techniques / SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study Limits: Adolescent / Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged / Young adult Country/Region as subject: Europa Language: English Journal: BMJ Open Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Bmjopen-2020-043925

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Nasopharynx / Clinical Laboratory Techniques / SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study Limits: Adolescent / Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged / Young adult Country/Region as subject: Europa Language: English Journal: BMJ Open Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Bmjopen-2020-043925