ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2021
Usability and Acceptability of Home-based Self-testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Antibodies for Population Surveillance.
Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07200401 (A Feasibility Study to Explore the Safety, Acceptability and Potential Cost Effectiveness of Self-swabbing at Home to Obtain Usable Surgical Wound Culture Swabs), which is not on this map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Feasibility Study to Explore the Safety, Acceptability and Potential Cost Effectiveness of Self-swabbing at Home to Obtain Usable Surgical Wound Culture Swabs
Who cites it
42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acceptability of self-sampling and self-testing for infections: a rapid systematic review on public users' views.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- User experience of home-based AbC-19 SARS-CoV-2 antibody rapid lateral flow immunoassay test.Scientific reports · 2022Trial
- Acceptability and usability of COVID-19 antigen self-test in populations under socioeconomic vulnerability in Brazil: A cross-sectional study.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Utility and usability of a dengue NS1 rapid diagnostic as a self-test.Tropical medicine and health · 2025Article
- How do large-scale population studies inform vaccine evaluations in England?Clinical and experimental immunology · 2025Review
- Article
- Evaluating the feasibility and attitudes towards SARS-CoV-2 self-testing in a rural population in Zimbabwe: a cross-sectional survey.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Needle-Plug/Piston-Based Modular Mesoscopic Design Paradigm Coupled With Microfluidic Device for Point-of-Care Pooled Testing.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Design and Implementation of a National Program to Monitor the Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG Antibodies in England Using Self-Testing: The REACT-2 Study.American journal of public health · 2023Article
- SARS-CoV-2 rapid antibody test results and subsequent risk of hospitalisation and death in 361,801 people.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Rapidly adaptable automated interpretation of point-of-care COVID-19 diagnostics.Communications medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- The hidden burden of medical testing: public views and experiences of COVID-19 testing as a social and ethical process.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Feasibility of home-based ELISA capillary blood self-testing for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.Practical laboratory medicine · 2022Article
- Exploration of the uptake of asymptomatic COVID-19 lateral flow testing in Birmingham, UK: survey and qualitative research.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Population antibody responses following COVID-19 vaccination in 212,102 individuals.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Simple, sensitive, specific self-sampling assay secures SARS-CoV-2 antibody signals in sero-prevalence and post-vaccine studies.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Feasibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen self-testing in school and summer camp attendees.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- Machine learning to support visual auditing of home-based lateral flow immunoassay self-test results for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.Communications medicine · 2022Article
- Acceptability and Willingness of UAE Residents to Use OTC Vending Machines to Deliver Self-Testing Kits for COVID-19 and the Implications.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study assesses acceptability and usability of home-based self-testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies using lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA).
methodsWe carried out public involvement and pilot testing in 315 volunteers to improve usability. Feedback was obtained through online discussions, questionnaires, observations, and interviews of people who tried the test at home. This informed the design of a nationally representative survey of adults in England using two LFIAs (LFIA1 and LFIA2) which were sent to 10 600 and 3800 participants, respectively, who provided further feedback.
resultsPublic involvement and pilot testing showed high levels of acceptability, but limitations with the usability of kits. Most people reported completing the test; however, they identified difficulties with practical aspects of the kit, particularly the lancet and pipette, a need for clearer instructions and more guidance on interpretation of results. In the national study, 99.3% (8693/8754) of LFIA1 and 98.4% (2911/2957) of LFIA2 respondents attempted the test and 97.5% and 97.8% of respondents completed it, respectively. Most found the instructions easy to understand, but some reported difficulties using the pipette (LFIA1: 17.7%) and applying the blood drop to the cassette (LFIA2: 31.3%). Most respondents obtained a valid result (LFIA1: 91.5%; LFIA2: 94.4%). Overall there was substantial concordance between participant and clinician interpreted results (kappa: LFIA1 0.72; LFIA2 0.89).
conclusionsImpactful public involvement is feasible in a rapid response setting. Home self-testing with LFIAs can be used with a high degree of acceptability and usability by adults, making them a good option for use in seroprevalence surveys.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.