Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Med Anthropol ; 43(4): 277-294, 2024 05 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38713821

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 testing programs in the UK often called on people to test to "protect others." In this article we explore motivations to test and the relationships to "others" involved in an asymptomatic testing program at a Scottish university. We show that participants engaged with testing as a relational technology, through which they navigated multiple overlapping responsibilities to kin, colleagues, flatmates, strangers, and to more diffuse publics. We argue that the success of testing as a technique of governance depends not only on the production of disciplined selves, but also on the program's capacity to align interpersonal and public scales of responsibility.


Subject(s)
Anthropology, Medical , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 , Public Health , Humans , Scotland , SARS-CoV-2 , Female , Male , Adult , Motivation
2.
BMJ Open ; 13(3): e065021, 2023 03 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36940944

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To explore the acceptability of regular asymptomatic testing for SARS-CoV-2 on a university campus using saliva sampling for PCR analysis and the barriers and facilitators to participation. DESIGN: Cross-sectional surveys and qualitative semistructured interviews. SETTING: Edinburgh, Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: University staff and students who had registered for the testing programme (TestEd) and provided at least one sample. RESULTS: 522 participants completed a pilot survey in April 2021 and 1750 completed the main survey (November 2021). 48 staff and students who consented to be contacted for interview took part in the qualitative research. Participants were positive about their experience with TestEd with 94% describing it as 'excellent' or 'good'. Facilitators to participation included multiple testing sites on campus, ease of providing saliva samples compared with nasopharyngeal swabs, perceived accuracy compared with lateral flow devices (LFDs) and reassurance of test availability while working or studying on campus. Barriers included concerns about privacy while testing, time to and methods of receiving results compared with LFDs and concerns about insufficient uptake in the university community. There was little evidence that the availability of testing on campus changed the behaviour of participants during a period when COVID-19 restrictions were in place. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of free asymptomatic testing for COVID-19 on a university campus was welcomed by participants and the use of saliva-based PCR testing was regarded as more comfortable and accurate than LFDs. Convenience is a key facilitator of participation in regular asymptomatic testing programmes. Availability of testing did not appear to undermine engagement with public health guidelines.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Testing , Universities , Cross-Sectional Studies , Pandemics , Scotland/epidemiology , Students
3.
BMC Public Health ; 22(1): 1837, 2022 09 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36180839

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In May 2020, the Scottish Government launched Test and Protect, a test, trace and isolate programme for COVID-19 that includes a PCR testing component. The programme's success depended on the willingness of members of the public to seek out testing when they experienced symptoms and to comply with guidelines on isolation should they test positive. Drawing on qualitative interview-based research, this paper analyses public understandings, expectations, and experiences of COVID-19 testing during the early stages of the programme. Through anthropological and sociological analysis of the findings we aim to contribute to social understandings of COVID-19 testing practices; and to inform the design of population level testing programmes for future pandemics. METHODS: Between 7 July and 24 September 2020, 70 semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of the general public (aged 19-85) living in the Lothian region of Scotland. Interviews were held online or by telephone, were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis informed by anthropological and sociological theories of medical testing. FINDINGS: Social relationships and ethical considerations shape testing practices at every stage of the testing process. Members of the public viewed testing as a civic duty to society and moral duty to friends, family, and colleagues. However, the testing process also placed a significant social, economic, and practical burden on the individual and sometimes generated competing obligations. Many participants experienced a disconnect between the government's portrayal of testing as easy and the everyday burden of testing. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 testing is experienced as a social process shaped by multiple relationships and ethical considerations. The full burden of testing should be considered in the design of future testing programmes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 , COVID-19/diagnosis , Government , Humans , Pandemics , Qualitative Research
4.
Diagnostics (Basel) ; 11(9)2021 Sep 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34574026

ABSTRACT

Testing programs for COVID-19 depend on the voluntary actions of members of the public for their success. Understanding people's knowledge, attitudes, and behavior related to COVID-19 testing is, therefore, key to the design of effective testing programs worldwide. This paper reports on the findings of a rapid scoping review to map the extent, characteristics, and scope of social science research on COVID-19 testing and identifies key themes from the literature. Main findings include the discoveries that people are largely accepting of testing technologies and guidelines and that a sense of social solidarity is a key motivator of testing uptake. The main barriers to accessing and undertaking testing include uncertainty about eligibility and how to access tests, difficulty interpreting symptoms, logistical issues including transport to and from test sites and the discomfort of sample extraction, and concerns about the consequences of a positive result. The review found that existing research was limited in depth and scope. More research employing longitudinal and qualitative methods based in under-resourced settings and examining intersections between testing and experiences of social, political, and economic vulnerability is needed. Last, the findings of this review suggest that testing should be understood as a social process that is inseparable from processes of contact tracing and isolation and is embedded in people's everyday routines, livelihoods and relationships.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...