Abstract
Objective To explore social and spatial inequalities in uptake and case-detection of rapid lateral flow SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (LFTs) offered to people without symptoms of COVID-19.
Design Observational study.
Setting Liverpool, UK.
Participants 496 784 residents.
Intervention Free LFTs to all people living and working in Liverpool (6th November 2020 to 31st January 2021).
Main outcome measures Residents who received a LFT, residents who had multiple LFTs, and positive test results.
Results 214 525 residents (43%) received a LFT identifying 5557 individuals as positive cases of COVID-19 (1.3%) between 6th November 2020 and 31st January 2021. 89 047 residents had more than one test (18%). Uptake was highest in November when there was military assistance. High uptake was observed again in the week preceding Christmas and was sustained into a national lockdown. Overall uptake and repeat testing were lower among males (e.g. 40% uptake over the whole period), Black Asian and other Minority Ethnic groups (e.g. 27% uptake for ‘Mixed’ ethnicity) and in the most deprived areas (e.g. 32% uptake in most deprived areas). These population groups were also more likely to have received positive tests for COVID-19. Spatial regression models demonstrated that uptake and repeat testing were lower in areas of higher deprivation, areas located further from test sites and areas containing populations less confident in the using Internet technologies. Positive tests were spatially clustered in deprived areas.
Conclusions Large-scale voluntary asymptomatic community testing saw social, ethnic, and spatial inequalities in an ‘inverse care’ pattern, but with an added digital exclusion factor. COVID-19 testing and support to isolate need to be more accessible to the vulnerable communities most impacted by the pandemic, including non-digital means of access.
What is already known on this topic
Testing asymptomatic individuals with rapid lateral flow SARS-CoV-2 antigen devices detects the most infectious individuals who otherwise would have been unaware they were likely to infect others.
Liverpool (UK) conducted the world’s first whole population, open-access, voluntary asymptomatic testing programme for COVID-19 management.
The impacts of such testing on inequalities are unknown.
What this study adds
Testing uptake was lower, and test positivity was higher, among deprived populations, Black Asian and other Minority Ethnic groups and areas classified as having low Internet use.
Population-wide asymptomatic testing programmes need to account for social, spatial, and digital access issues in their design, communication and delivery to minimise inequalities in outcomes.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The Department of Health and Social Care funded this evaluation. This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [grant number ES/L011840/1]. IB is supported by the National Institute for Health Research as Senior Investigator. The NIHR had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the article. This report is independent research arising from research supported by the NIHR. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
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 University of Liverpool has provided secondary data analysis as part of a national service evaluation with data collected by Department of Health and Social Care (Sponsor) for quality assurance of Innova lateral flow tests in a public health service intervention. There was no research commissioned by Department of Health and Social Care on this aspect of the Liverpool pilot of asymptomatic, community testing. As such, research ethics approval was not sought by the Department of Health and Social Care. Some aspects of the evaluation requiring fieldwork and primary data collection by the University of Liverpool were subject to ethical approval, which was confirmed prior to the commencement of activities by the Research Ethics Committee at University of Liverpool. The provision of secondary data analysis and interpretation did not require further ethical approval. Cheshire & Merseyside Health & Care Partnership Combined Intelligence for Population Health Action (CIPHA) Data Access Committee approved access to the data and analysis contained in the study. MAST/SMART was defined as an emergency public health intervention during an extraordinary event which were subject to the legal and ethical provisions of a health protection activity and COVID-19 specifically. The secondary analysis of data provided in a health protection activity is not classified as research, and so does not require research ethics committee review (see http://www.hra-decisiontools.org.uk/research/docs/DefiningResearchTable_Oct2017-1.pdf).
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
Data are accessible via CIPHA. Requests can be made to the Data Access Committee for extracts of the larger-scale data which cannot be released openly due to information governance requirements. All R code is accessible here https://github.com/markagreen/asymptomatic_testing_evaluation.
https://github.com/markagreen/asymptomatic_testing_evaluation
