Abstract
Importance: Ascertaining preferences for SARS-CoV-2 testing and incorporating findings into the design and implementation of strategies for delivering testing services may enhance testing uptake and engagement, a prerequisite to reducing onward transmission. Objective: To determine important drivers of decisions to obtain a SARS-CoV-2 test in the context of increasing community transmission. Design: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to assess the relative importance of type of SARS-CoV-2 test, specimen type, testing venue, and results turnaround time. Uptake of an optimized testing scenario was simulated relative to the current typical testing scenario of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) via nasopharyngeal (NP) swab in a provider office or urgent care clinic with results in >5 days. Setting: Online survey, embedded in an existing cohort study, conducted during July 30 - September 8, 2020. Participants: Participants (n=4,793) were enrolled in the CHASING COVID Cohort Study, a national longitudinal cohort of adults >18 years residing in the 50 US states, Washington, DC, Puerto Rico, or Guam. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): Relative importance of SARS-CoV-2 testing method attributes, utilities of specific attribute levels, and probability of choosing a testing scenario based on preferences estimated from the DCE, the current typical testing option, or choosing not to test. Results: Turnaround time for test results had the highest relative importance (30.4%), followed by test type (28.3%), specimen type (26.2%), and venue (15.0%). Participants preferred fast results on both past and current infection and using a noninvasive specimen, preferably collected at home. Simulations suggested that providing immediate or same day test results, providing both PCR and serology, or collecting oral specimens would substantially increase testing uptake over the current typical testing option. Simulated uptake of a hypothetical testing scenario of PCR and serology via a saliva sample at a pharmacy with same day results was 97.7%, compared to 0.6% for the current typical testing scenario, with 1.8% opting for no test. Conclusions and Relevance: Testing strategies that offer both PCR and serology with non-invasive methods and rapid turnaround time would likely have the most uptake and engagement among residents in communities with increasing community transmission of SARS-CoV-2.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.28.20080630v1
Funding Statement
Funding for this project is provided by the CUNY Institute for Implementation Science in Population Health (cunyisph.org), the COVID-19 Grant Program of the CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, and the National Institute Of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number UH3AI133675.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the City University of New York Graduate School of Public Health.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Requests to access deidentified study data can be made by contacting the investigators directly
