BibTex format
@article{Atchison:2020:cid/ciaa1178,
author = {Atchison, C and Pristerà, P and Cooper, E and Papageorgiou, V and Redd, R and Piggin, M and Flower, B and Fontana, G and Satkunarajah, S and Ashrafian, H and Lawrence-Jones, A and Naar, L and Chigwende, J and Gibbard, S and Riley, S and Darzi, A and Elliott, P and Ashby, D and Barclay, W and Cooke, GS and Ward, H},
doi = {cid/ciaa1178},
journal = {Clinical Infectious Diseases},
pages = {1--10},
title = {Usability and acceptability of home-based self-testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies for population surveillance},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1178},
volume = {2020},
year = {2020}
}
RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)
TY - JOUR
AB - BACKGROUND: This study assesses acceptability and usability of home-based self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA). METHODS: We carried out public involvement and pilot testing in 315 volunteers to improve usability. Feedback was obtained through online discussions, questionnaires, observations and interviews of people who tried the test at home. This informed the design of a nationally representative survey of adults in England using two LFIAs (LFIA1 and LFIA2) which were sent to 10,600 and 3,800 participants, respectively, who provided further feedback. RESULTS: Public involvement and pilot testing showed high levels of acceptability, but limitations with the usability of kits. Most people reported completing the test; however, they identified difficulties with practical aspects of the kit, particularly the lancet and pipette, a need for clearer instructions and more guidance on interpretation of results. In the national study, 99.3% (8,693/8,754) of LFIA1 and 98.4% (2,911/2,957) of LFIA2 respondents attempted the test and 97.5% and 97.8% of respondents completed it, respectively. Most found the instructions easy to understand, but some reported difficulties using the pipette (LFIA1: 17.7%) and applying the blood drop to the cassette (LFIA2: 31.3%). Most respondents obtained a valid result (LFIA1: 91.5%; LFIA2: 94.4%). Overall there was substantial concordance between participant and clinician interpreted results (kappa: LFIA1 0.72; LFIA2 0.89). CONCLUSION: Impactful public involvement is feasible in a rapid response setting. Home self-testing with LFIAs can be used with a high degree of acceptability and usability by adults, making them a good option for use in seroprevalence surveys.
AU - Atchison,C
AU - Pristerà,P
AU - Cooper,E
AU - Papageorgiou,V
AU - Redd,R
AU - Piggin,M
AU - Flower,B
AU - Fontana,G
AU - Satkunarajah,S
AU - Ashrafian,H
AU - Lawrence-Jones,A
AU - Naar,L
AU - Chigwende,J
AU - Gibbard,S
AU - Riley,S
AU - Darzi,A
AU - Elliott,P
AU - Ashby,D
AU - Barclay,W
AU - Cooke,GS
AU - Ward,H
DO - cid/ciaa1178
EP - 10
PY - 2020///
SN - 1058-4838
SP - 1
TI - Usability and acceptability of home-based self-testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies for population surveillance
T2 - Clinical Infectious Diseases
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1178
UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32785665
UR - https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1178/5891615
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/81988
VL - 2020
ER -
