Local Community Response to Mass Asymptomatic COVID-19 Testing in Liverpool, England: Social Media Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Mass asymptomatic testing for COVID-19 was piloted for the first time in the United Kingdom in Liverpool in November 2020. There is limited evidence on uptake of mass testing, and previously where surge testing has been deployed, uptake has been low. OBJECTIVE: There was an urgent need to rapidly evaluate acceptance of asymptomatic testing, specifically identifying barriers and facilitators to taking part. METHODS: As part of the wider evaluation, we conducted a rapid thematic analysis of local community narratives on social media to provide insights from people unlikely to engage in testing or other standard evaluation techniques, such as surveys or interviews. We identified 3 publicly available data sources: the comments section of a local online newspaper, the city council Facebook page, and Twitter. Data were collected between November 2, 2020, and November 8, 2020, to cover the period between announcement of mass testing in Liverpool and the first week of testing. Overall, 1096 comments were sampled: 219 newspaper comments, 472 Facebook comments, and 405 tweets. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. RESULTS: Key barriers were accessibility, including site access and concerns over queuing. Queues were also highlighted as a concern due to risk of transmission. Consequences of testing, including an increase in cases leading to further restrictions and financial impact of the requirement for self-isolation, were also identified as barriers. In addition, a lack of trust in authorities and the test (including test accuracy and purpose of testing) was identified. Comments coded as indicative of lack of trust were coded in some cases as indicative of strong collective identity with the city of Liverpool and marginalization due to feeling like test subjects. However, other comments coded as identification with Liverpool were coded as indicative of motivation to engage in testing and encourage others to do so; for this group, being part of a pilot was seen as a positive experience and an opportunity to demonstrate the city could successfully manage the virus. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis highlights the importance of promoting honest and open communication to encourage and harness existing community identities to enhance the legitimacy of asymptomatic testing as a policy. In addition, adequate and accessible financial support needs to be in place prior to the implementation of community asymptomatic testing to mitigate any concerns surrounding financial hardship. Rapid thematic analysis of social media is a pragmatic method to gather insights from communities around acceptability of public health interventions, such as mass testing or vaccination uptake.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».