Assessing Values and Preferences Toward SARS-CoV-2 Self-testing Among the General Population and Their Representatives, Health Care Personnel, and Decision-Makers: Protocol for a Multicountry Mixed Methods Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accessible, safe, and client-centered SARS-CoV-2 testing services are an effective way to halt its transmission. Testing enables infected individuals to isolate or quarantine to prevent further transmission. In countries with limited health systems and laboratory capacity, it can be challenging to provide accessible and safe screening for COVID-19. Self-testing provides a convenient, private, and safe testing option; however, it also raises important concerns about lack of counseling and ensuring timely reporting of self-test results to national surveillance systems. Investigating community members' views and perceptions regarding SARS-CoV-2 self-testing is crucial to inform the most effective and safe strategies for implementing said testing. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 self-testing was useful to diagnose and prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 for populations in low-resource settings and under which circumstances it would be acceptable. METHODS: This multisite, mixed methods, observational study will be conducted in 9 countries-Brazil, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Peru, the Philippines, and South Africa-and will consists of 2 components: cross-sectional surveys and interviews (semistructured and group) among 4 respondent groupings: the general population, general population representatives, health care workers, and decision-makers. General population and health care worker survey responses will be analyzed separately from each other, using bivariate and multivariate inferential analysis and descriptive statistics. Semistructured interviews and group interviews will be audiorecorded, transcribed, and coded for thematic comparative analysis. RESULTS: As of November 19, 2021, participant enrollment is ongoing; 4364 participants have been enrolled in the general population survey, and 2233 participants have been enrolled in the health care workers survey. In the qualitative inquiry, 298 participants have been enrolled. We plan to complete data collection by December 31, 2021 and publish results in 2022 via publications, presentations at conferences, and dissemination events specifically targeted at local decision-makers, civil society, and patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: The views and perceptions of local populations are crucial in the discussion of the safest strategies for implementing SARS-CoV-2 self-testing. We intend to identify sociocultural specificities that may hinder or accelerate the widespread utilization of SARS-CoV-2 self-testing. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/33088.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it