COVID-19
Conditions
Keywords
Test intentions, Lateral Flow test uptake
Brief summary
Lateral Flow Testing (LFT) use for COVID-19 related symptoms continues to rise, despite governmental advice to test at a test facility. In this study we investigate whether 1) adjusting the governmental testing advice will lead to a collective increase of people who test with COVID-19 symptoms and if this leads to a higher strategy sensitivity.
Detailed description
In an online randomised multi-factorial survey (vignette study) participants are randomised to assess four scenario's. Between subject testing advise is randomised (IV1; 2 levels) and the availability of LFT (IV2; 2 levels). Within subject we asked participants to assess their most likely behaviour on day 1 of symptoms and day 3 of unchanged symptoms (IV3; 2 levels). Corona-related symptoms are randomly presented (IV4; 4 levels) and new incidences of symptoms are presented in additional vignettes describing new months (IV5; 4 levels). Subjects are asked to immerse themselves in the scenario's before answering what their most likely behaviour would be: a) go to a test facility b) use a LFT c) wait and see or 4) no test. Participants who didn't choose the test facility on day 1 were presented with the same vignette on day 3 with unchanged symptoms, and were asked their most likely behaviour again. After assessing the scenario's, participants fill in a questionnaire assessing demographics, behavioural determinants related to test behaviour, vaccine status, current symptoms and previous experience with Corona and testing. The primary outcomes is defined as the average strategy sensitivity over time and therefore the chance of detecting a Covid-infection. Average strategy sensitivity is calculated by converting the choice of testing behaviour into the corresponding sensitivity score (PCR =1, LFT day 1 = .8, LFT day 3 = .7, wait and see and no test = 0), averaged over four scenario's. Our primary hypothesis is: 1. Adjusting the governmental testing advice will lead to a higher strategy sensitivity. In follow-up analysis we will explore the following hypothesis: 2. Availability of LFT at home will lead to a higher strategy sensitivity. 3. The type of corona related symptoms (mild or severe) are predictive of the type of test used. 4. When confronted with a new incidence of corona-related symptoms over time, strategy sensitivity will decline.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALCustomised testing advice
Customised advice: With Corona related symptoms, get tested at a test facility. If this isn't possible, use a Lateral Flow test.
BEHAVIORALRegular testing advice
Government guideline testing advice: With Corona related symptoms, get tested at a test facility.
BEHAVIORALLFT available
LFT availability: Enough lateral flow tests available at home
BEHAVIORALNo LFT available
LFT availability: No lateral flow tests available at home
Sponsors
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM)
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
FACTORIAL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Investigator)
Intervention model description
In an online randomised multi-factorial survey (vignette study) participants are randomised to assess four scenario's. Between subject testing advise is randomised (IV1; 2 levels) and the availability of LFT (IV2; 2 levels). Within subject we asked participants to assess their most likely behaviour on day 1 of symptoms and day 3 of unchanged symptoms (IV3; 2 levels). Corona-related symptoms are randomly presented (IV4; 4 levels) and new incidences of symptoms are presented in additional vignettes describing new months (IV5; 4 levels).
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
Participants were recruited from an online research panel representative for the Dutch population. Inclusion Criteria: * non
Exclusion criteria
* non
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Average strategy sensitivity over time: day 1 | average strategy sensitivity day 1 | The sensitivity of the test chosen was used to convert each answer: test facility on day 1 = 1, LFT on day 1= 0.8, Wait and see or No test = 0. Sensitivity scores were then averaged over the four scenario's. |
| Maximum average strategy sensitivity over time | maximum average strategy sensitivity day 1 and 3 | The sensitivity of the test chosen was used to convert each answer: test facility on day 1 or day 3 = 1, LFT on day 1= 0.8, LFT on day 3= 0.7, Wait and see or No test = 0. Sensitivity scores were then averaged over the four scenario's. The highest score of day 1 and day 3 was used to calculate the maximum sensitivity score. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Willingness to test day 1 | Day 1 | Willingness to test on day 1 (LFT & PCR =1, no test = 0), averaged over the four scenario's. |
| Willingness to test - maximum | Day 1 and 3 | Willingness to test on day 1 and 3 (LFT & PCR =1, no test = 0), averaged over the four scenario's. |
| Type of test chosen day 1 | Day 1 | Percentage of testing behaviour (test facility, LFT, Wait and see, No test) on day 1, averaged over the four scenario's. |
| Type of test chosen day 3 | Day 3 | Percentage of testing behaviour (test facility, LFT, Wait and see, No test) on day 3, averaged over the four scenario's. |
Countries
Netherlands
Outcome results
None listed