Dataset Information

Public's understanding of swab test results for SARS-CoV-2: an online behavioural experiment during the April 2020 lockdown.

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.

SUBMITTER: Pighin S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7813337 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Public's understanding of swab test results for SARS-CoV-2: an online behavioural experiment during the April 2020 lockdown.

Pighin Stefania S Tentori Katya K

BMJ open 20210117 1

<h4>Objective</h4>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.<h4>Design</h4>Web-based behavioural experiment.<h4>Setting</h4>Italy during the April 2020 lockdown.<h4>Participants</h4>566 Italian residents.<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>Participants' estimates of the SARS-CoV-2 p ...[more]

PMID: 33455939

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRandomised trials are considered the gold standard in providing robust evidence on the effectiveness of interventions. However, there are relatively few initiatives to help increase public understanding of what randomised trials are and why they are important. This limits the overall acceptance of and public participation in clinical trials. The People's Trial aims to help the public learn about randomised trials, to understand why they matter, and to be better equipped to think critically about health claims by actively involving them in all aspects of trial design. This was done by involving the public in the design, conduct, and dissemination of a randomised trial.MethodsUsing a reflexive approach, we describe the processes of development, conduct, and dissemination of The People's Trial.ResultsOver 3000 members of the public, from 72 countries, participated in The People's Trial. Through a series of online surveys, the public designed a trial called The Reading Trial. They chose the question the trial would try to answer and decided the components of the trial question. In December 2019, 991 participants were recruited to a trial to answer the question identified and prioritised by the public, i.e. 'Does reading a book in bed make a difference to sleep in comparison with not reading a book in bed?' We report the processes of The People's Trial in seven phases, paralleling the steps of a randomised trial, i.e. question identification and prioritisation, recruitment, randomisation, trial conduct, data analysis, and sharing of findings. We describe the decisions we made, the processes we used, the challenges we encountered, and the lessons we learned.ConclusionThe People's Trial involved the public successfully in the design, conduct, and dissemination of a randomised trial demonstrating the potential for such initiatives to help the public learn about randomised trials, to understand why they matter, and to be better equipped to think critically about health claims.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04185818 . Registered on 4 December 2019.

Project description:This article reports data collected from 385 performing arts professionals using the HEartS Professional Survey during the COVID-19 Lockdown 1.0 in the United Kingdom. Study 1 examined characteristics of performing arts professionals' work and health, and investigated how these relate to standardized measures of wellbeing. Study 2 examined the effects of the lockdown on work and wellbeing in the respondents' own words. Findings from Study 1 indicate a substantial reduction in work and income. 53% reported financial hardship, 85% reported increased anxiety, and 63% reported being lonelier than before the crisis. 61% sought support on finances while only 45% did so on health and wellbeing. Multiple regression analyses, using the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, Social Connectedness Scale, and Three-Item Loneliness Scale as outcome variables, indicate that perceived financial hardship was associated with lower wellbeing and higher depression and loneliness scores. Higher self-rated health was associated with higher wellbeing and lower depression scores. More physical activity before lockdown was associated with higher wellbeing and social connectedness scores, as well as lower loneliness scores, and an increase in physical activity during lockdown compared with before, as well as older age, were associated with higher wellbeing and social connectedness scores, and lower depression and loneliness scores. Thematic inductive analysis of 341 open responses in Study 2 identified five overarching themes characterizing the effects of Lockdown 1.0: lost or uncertain work and income, including canceled work, financial concerns, and uncertainties for the future; constraints of lockdown working, including challenges of working at home, struggles with online work and skill maintenance, and caring responsibilities; loss and vulnerability, including reduced social connections, lack of support, vulnerability, feelings of loss and grief, and concern for others; detrimental effects on health and wellbeing, including anxiety, low or unstable mood, poorer physical health, and lack of motivation; and professional and personal opportunities, including coping well or living more healthily, more time and less pressure, new possibilities and activities, enhanced social connections, and new skills. Lockdown 1.0 had profound effects on performing arts professionals, but our findings reveal some opportunities and compelling links between positive wellbeing and physical activity.

Dataset Information

Public's understanding of swab test results for SARS-CoV-2: an online behavioural experiment during the April 2020 lockdown.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Public's understanding of swab test results for SARS-CoV-2: an online behavioural experiment during the April 2020 lockdown.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets