Examining the association between reported COVID-19 symptoms and testing for COVID-19 in Canada: a cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Studies on the management of the COVID-19 pandemic through testing have been conducted in countries that have been hardest hit by this pandemic. Considering the importance of testing in containing the spread of COVID-19, it is useful to have evidence on continuing COVID-19 testing even in countries where the prevalence of COVID-19 is relatively low. We, therefore, examined the association between reported COVID-19 symptoms and testing for COVID-19 in Canada. DESIGN AND SETTINGS: We conducted an online survey using the SurveyMonkey platform between July and October 2020 across Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A nationally representative sample size of 2790 adult individuals was used. RESULTS: Our findings show that respondents who reported that they and/or members of their households had COVID-19 symptoms were more likely to test for COVID-19 (adjusted OR, aOR 1.91; 95% CI 1.32 to 2.76) as compared with those who did not report COVID-19 symptoms. The likelihood of testing for COVID-19 was lower among male respondents compared with females (aOR 0.69; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.96), respondents aged 65-84 compared with those aged 18-44 (aOR 0.62; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.93), and respondents in British Columbia compared with those residing in Quebec. Higher odds of testing for COVID-19 were found among respondents who lived in Alberta compared with those who lived in Quebec (aOR 0.42; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.75) and respondents who had postgraduate education compared with those with high school or less education (aOR 1.84; 95% CI 1.01 to 3.36). The association between reported COVID-19 symptoms and testing for COVID-19 was statistically significant among female respondents (aOR 1.52; 95% CI 1.81 to 3.52) but not among male respondents. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, this study provides evidence in support of the hypothesis that there is significant association between reported COVID-19 symptoms and COVID-19 testing among adult Canadians. The study highlights the need for the Canadian government to prioritise subpopulations (ie, males, those aged 65-85, and those with high school or less education) that have lower likelihood of seeking COVID-19 testing to get tested when they have symptoms.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".