ABSTRACT
Objective To evaluate COVID-19 lateral flow testing (LFT) among asymptomatic university students.
Study design Mixed methods evaluation of LFT among University of Bristol students.
Methods i) An analysis of testing uptake and exploration of demographic variations in uptake using logistic regression; ii) an online student survey about views on university testing; and iii) qualitative interviews to explore participants’ experiences of testing and subsequent behaviour, analysed using a thematic approach.
Results 12,391 LFTs were conducted on 8025/36,054 (22.3%) students. Only one in 10 students had the recommended two tests. There were striking demographic disparities in uptake with those from ethnic minority groups having lower uptake (e.g. 3% of Chinese students were tested vs. 30.7% of White students), and variations by level and year of study (ranging from 5.3% to 33.7%), place of residence (29.0% to 35.6%) and faculty (15.2% to 32.8%). Differences persisted in multivariable analyses.
A total of 436 students completed the online survey, and twenty in-depth interviews were conducted. Barriers to engagement with testing included a lack of awareness, knowledge and understanding, and concerns about the accuracy and safety. Students understood limitations of LFTs but requested further information about test accuracy. Tests were used to inform behavioural decisions, often in combination with other information, such as the potential for exposure to the virus and perceptions of vulnerability.
Conclusions The low uptake of testing brings into question the role of mass LFT in university settings. Innovative strategies may be needed to increase LFT uptake among students.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at the University of Bristol, in partnership with Public Health England (PHE). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care, or PHE. The funders had no role in the design of the study, collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data, or in writing the manuscript.
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:
Ethical approval was obtained from University of Bristol faculty ethics committee (Reference 115084).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
