Diagnostic Testing Preferences in Rural and Vulnerable Populations During a Pandemic: Discrete Choice Experiment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: A particular challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic was to provide testing and treatment for already disadvantaged and vulnerable populations. Many states implemented testing in a sporadic and disorganized way, and it is unclear to what extent this disproportionally affected population experienced barriers to accessing care. It is also unclear whether potential barriers to testing were caused by systemic challenges, such as rurality, or by individuals' motivations for not getting tested. Objective: The objective of this study was to understand the trade-offs individuals in rural and vulnerable populations make between attributes of COVID-19 testing and how these vary across individuals. The study was part of RADx-UP, a consortium of more than 125 projects studying COVID-19 testing patterns in communities across the United States. Methods: First, we conducted 7 focus groups to identify barriers to COVID-19 testing and optimal strategies to increase testing. These barriers and strategies were then used to develop hypothetical choice scenarios in a discrete choice experiment. Data regarding preferences for testing were collected from an online panel (n=780) and oversampled in rural populations. We used quota sampling for age, gender, household income, and race: 50% of household incomes were above and below the median rural income of $52k per year 2023, and the maximum number of White, non-Hispanic respondents was 615. The data were analyzed using a conditional logit model (CL) and latent class analysis (LCA). Results: We found that the attributes for testing locations were almost all significant and had the expected signs. As hypothesized, respondents were less likely to choose a test location that had a higher wait time (coefficient -0.183, SE 0.006); more travel time to get tested (coefficient -1.129, SE0.054); that was higher cost (coefficient -0.020, SE 0.000); where someone else would collect the sample (coefficient -0.230, SE 0.036); where it would take more time to receive results (coefficient -0.032, SE 0.006); and where the tests would cause more discomfort (coefficient -0.125, SE 0.007). They were more likely to choose a mail-order option (coefficient 0.494, SE 0.075) and options that had higher test accuracy (coefficient 0.026, SE 0.001). While respondents cared about these structural factors, these were not the primary drivers of choice for testing. Some important covariates were driving preferences, including age, gender, medical vulnerability, insurance status, trust in government organizations, and previous flu vaccination, which may be a proxy for compliance. These covariates helped explain the observed preference heterogeneity. Conclusions: The results suggest that important social, behavioral, and policy factors affect choice for testing. Contrary to our hypotheses, rurality did not significantly impact preferences for testing; however, attitudes toward government and other beliefs did. Health care interventions intended to reduce rural health disparities that do not reflect the underlying values of individuals in those subpopulations are unlikely to be successful.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,019 | 0,025 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».