ABSTRACT
In order to understand preferences about SARS-CoV-2 testing, we conducted a discrete choice experiment among 4793 participants in the Communities, Households, and SARS-CoV-2 Epidemiology (CHASING COVID) Cohort Study from July 30-September 8, 2020. We used latent class analysis to identify distinct patterns of preferences related to testing and conducted a simulation to predict testing uptake if additional testing scenarios were offered. Five distinct patterns of SARS-CoV-2 testing emerged. “Comprehensive testers” (18.9%) ranked specimen type as most important and favored less invasive specimen types, with saliva most preferred, and also ranked venue and result turnaround time as highly important, with preferences for home testing and fast result turnaround time. “Fast track testers” (26.0%) ranked result turnaround time as most important and favored immediate and same day turnaround time. “Dual testers” (18.5%) ranked test type as most important and preferred both antibody and viral tests. “Non-invasive dual testers” (33.0%) ranked specimen type and test type as similarly most important, preferring cheek swab specimen type and both antibody and viral tests. “Home testers” (3.6%) ranked venue as most important and favored home-based testing. By offering less invasive (saliva specimen type), dual testing (both viral and antibody tests), and at home testing scenarios in addition to standard testing scenarios, simulation models predicted that testing uptake would increase from 81.7% to 98.1%. We identified substantial differences in preferences for SARS-CoV-2 testing and found that offering additional testing options, which consider this heterogeneity, would likely increase testing uptake.
SIGNIFICANCE During the COVID-19 pandemic, diagnostic testing has allowed for early detection of cases and implementation of measures to reduce community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Understanding individuals’ preferences about testing and the service models that deliver tests are relevant in efforts to increase and sustain uptake of SARS-CoV-2 testing, which, despite vaccine availability, will be required for the foreseeable future. We identified substantial differences in preferences for SARS-CoV-2 testing in a discrete choice experiment among a large national cohort of adults in the US. Offering additional testing options that account for or anticipate this heterogeneity in preferences (e.g., both viral and antibody tests, at home testing), would likely increase testing uptake.
Classification Biological Sciences (major); Psychological and Cognitive Sciences (minor)
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://cunyisph.org/chasing-covid/
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:
CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy Institutional Review Board
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
Footnotes
CONTACT AND COMPETING INTEREST INFORMATION Matthew L. Romo (matthew.romo{at}sph.cuny.edu;, Rebecca Zimba (rebecca.zimba{at}sph.cuny.edu;, Sarah Kulkarni (sarah.kulkarni{at}sph.cuny.edu), Amanda Berry (amanda.berry{at}sph.cuny.edu;, William You (william.you{at}sph.cuny.edu), Chloe Mirzayi (chloe.mirzayi{at}sph.cuny.edu;, Drew Westmoreland (drew.westmoreland{at}sph.cuny.edu;, Angela M. Parcesepe (parcesep{at}live.unc.edu), Levi Waldron (levi.waldron{at}sph.cuny.edu;, Madhura Rane (madhura.rane{at}sph.cuny.edu), Shivani Kochhar (shivani.kochhar{at}sph.cuny.edu), McKaylee Robertson (mckaylee.robertson{at}sph.cuny.edu;, Andrew R Maroko (andrew.maroko{at}sph.cuny.edu;, Christian Grov (christian.grov{at}sph.cuny.edu), and Denis Nash (denis.nash{at}sph.cuny.edu)
We have no competing interests.
Data Availability
De-identified data are available upon request from the corresponding author.