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.
INTRODUCTION
Lateral flow testing (LFT) of asymptomatic people remains an integral part of the UK’s COVID-19 response. Since 9th April 2021 everyone in England has been eligible to take a LFT twice weekly 1-4. There is an ongoing and polarised debate around mass testing to detect asymptomatic infections using this technology. Since approximately one third of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have no symptoms, it is argued that identifying infections among this group so that they can isolate and their contacts be traced is key to controlling the pandemic 3, 4. Although this policy was well received by some 5-7 others have raised concerns, particularly around test accuracy and the potential consequences of inaccurate results 8-11. While the accuracy of LFT is important, much less attention has been paid to levels of uptake of testing, which could pose a major barrier for the use and effectiveness of asymptomatic testing.
In Autumn 2020, COVID cases were high among university students in the UK 12. In November 2020 the government recommended LFT for university students, recommending that all students should have two negative tests before travelling home for the winter break 1, 13. Evaluation of this testing strategy, including equity in testing uptake is crucial if testing continues to be used to control the pandemic in the future.
University populations offer a unique opportunity to quantify testing uptake in a well-defined group of individuals. Our study aims to i) assess uptake of LFT among University of Bristol students, including demographic variations; ii) explore the acceptability and feasibility of asymptomatic testing and iii) to explore the barriers and facilitators to uptake and effective implementation of testing.
METHODS
We conducted a mixed methods evaluation of LFT among University of Bristol students who did not have COVID-19 symptoms; comprising a quantitative analysis of testing uptake data, a student survey and qualitative interviews.
Testing uptake
We analysed data on the uptake of LFT from 30th November to 18th December 2020. Students pre-booked their tests online. On arrival at testing venues they were asked to swipe their university identity card. A list of all students enrolled at the university, held by student records, was matched with the date of any tests undertaken, as collected via card swipes at testing venues using student ID number. Information on location of students during the study period was not available. However, a sensitivity analysis was conducted by excluding students who were either enrolled on a distance learning course or completed a ‘location of study’ form indicating that they were likely not going to be on campus. The total number of positive results was recorded at testing sites but was not documented for individual students. Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted using logistic regression to explore demographic factors associated with being tested. All explanatory variables were included in the multivariable model a priori. Analyses were conducted in STATA 16.1 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX).
Survey
Participants were invited to complete a confidential online survey about their views of university testing (Supplement 1). A link to the survey was shared by the university communications team via social media (Facebook, Twitter and Instagram) and via the student newsletter. Informed consent was obtained.
Frequencies and descriptive statistics are presented for closed survey questions. Free text answers were used to offer further insight into answers given to closed survey questions. We identified key barriers to engagement with testing using qualitative content analysis in three stages 14-16 – survey responses were coded independently by two authors, codes were then categorised into a list of barriers and facilitators, and data assigned to each category.
Interviews
Volunteers who took part in the survey and provided consent to be contacted by the research team were invited to take part in an online interview. Participants were >18 years and a registered student at the university. We purposely sampled for diversity in key factors, including ethnicity, living arrangements, enrolled course, and whether or not they had taken a test at the university. Sample size was informed by the concept of ‘information power’ 17, with continuous assessment of the data in relation to study objectives.
Potential participants were provided with a study information sheet and given an opportunity to ask questions, informed of the voluntary nature of the study, and assured of the confidentiality of their data. As all interviews were conducted via the telephone or online, and audio recorded verbal consent was obtained.
The semi-structured topic guide (Supplement 2) aimed to explore participants’ views about testing, understanding and interpretation of test results, and impact on behaviour.
Data from interviews were analysed using a thematic approach 18, 19. Two researchers independently read and assigned codes to transcripts. Possible themes were identified and refined. Charts were developed for each theme, and relevant text from transcripts were copied verbatim. Charts were then used to compare data within and between individuals.
RESULTS
Quantitative analysis
Testing uptake
A total of 12,391 LFD tests were conducted on 8025 (22.3%) of the 36,054 students enrolled at the university. Of those tested, 3921 (48.9%) had one test, 3880 (48.3%) had the recommended two tests, 189 (2.4%) had three tests and 35 (0.4%) had four to six tests. There were 13 positive results.
Demographic variations in testing uptake (Tables 1 and 2)
Although the absolute percentage of students taking up testing was similar across genders (21.9% for men and 22.5% for women), women were more likely to be tested than men (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11-1.25). There were striking variations in uptake by ethnic group. Uptake was highest in ethnically White students, with 30.7% taking at least one test. Uptake was lower among all other groups - it was lowest among students belonging to the Chinese ethnic group (3%, aOR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.14-0.20), followed by the Black African, Black Caribbean and Black other group (12.3%, aOR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.28-0.42). It was also low among the Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi group (17.5%, aOR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.47-0.61).
When compared with Year 1 undergraduate students living in halls of residence, Year 1 undergraduate students not living in halls were less likely to be tested (aOR: 0.20, 95% CI:0.17-0.24), as were postgraduate students, particularly postgraduate taught students (aOR: 0.15, 95% CI:0.14-0.17). Testing uptake also varied by faculty. Compared with students in the Faculty of Science, uptake was lower among those in all other faculties. It was lowest in the Faculty of Social Sciences and Law and the Faculty of Arts.
A sensitivity multivariable analysis excluding students who were likely not to have been on campus during the testing period (n=4,907, 13.6% of all students) did not alter the observed patterns in testing uptake. Odds ratios changed a little (all <10%) and were within the confidence intervals reported in Table 2.
Survey
A total of 436 students completed the survey, of which 328 (75%) had taken part in testing and 108 (25%) had not (Supplement 3).
Attitudes towards testing
Among students who engaged in the university testing service and those who did not, the majority described their views of getting regular tests as either somewhat positive (31% and 31% respectively) or very positive (51% v 31%). Few participants described their views of testing as somewhat negative or very negative (18% of those who did not participate in testing vs. 5% of those who did: Table 3).
Interpretation of test results
Most students understood that a negative test result meant that the person is probably not infectious (84% of those who had a test versus 75% of those who did not – Table 3). Only a minority of students in both groups thought a negative test means the person is definitely not infectious (6% of those engaging in testing v 12% of those who did not) or that they did not know (4% of those engaging in testing v 9% of those who did not).
Behaviour
Approximately half of students engaging in testing reported that the level of contact with others had not changed in the seven days following the testing period (55%). 19% of students reported that close contact increased, and 17% reported that close contact had decreased following tests (Table 3). Self-reported adherence to the guidance was similar between the groups, with 90% of those engaging in testing and 81% of those not engaging in testing reporting that they had been adherent to the guidance all or most of the time (Table 3).
Barriers
A total of 108 comments were coded and used to identify barriers to engagement in testing (Table 4). Barriers were categorised as 1) Perceived lack of need or demand 2) Problems accessing the service 3) Safety concerns 4) Knowledge and understanding and 5) Lack of support for self-isolation.
Interviews
Twenty students were interviewed; including fourteen who reported that they had taken a test at the university in December 2020 and seven had not. Data is presented under three main themes 1) motives for engaging in testing 2) barriers to testing 3) and using test results to inform behavioural decisions.
Motives for engaging in testing
Three main motives for taking part in university testing procedures included 1) to reduce the risk of transmitting the virus 2) for information and 3) following recommendations and guidance.
To reduce risk of transmission to others
Most students were more concerned about the risk to others than to themselves (Table 5 quote 1), and were willing to take tests to protect other people from the virus. Tests provided reassurance that they were not spreading the virus to others (quote 2). This was particularly important for those planning to relocate for the holidays (quote 3), those with vulnerable family members (quote 4), or those who considered themselves to have been at risk of exposure to the virus (quote 5).
For information
In some cases, students wanted to take tests for information (quote 6). Although these students were not necessarily planning to travel, they were keen to take tests for their own benefit (quote 7), including for their mental health (quote 8).
Following recommendations
Students reported taking tests simply because they were available (quote 9), and supported by the University (quote 10). For some, tests were a requirement for attendance at in-person lectures (quote 11), or travel (quote 12).
Barriers
Barriers to uptake of testing include 1) lack of need 2) lack of awareness 3) access 4) risk of exposure at the testing site.
Lack of need
One reason for not engaging in testing was that the student did not think that tests were required or intended for them. For example, one student explained that she had not taken a test at the university because she was not planning to travel away from Bristol (quote 13). Other students were able and willing to isolate, and considered this preferable to testing (quote 14), or demonstrated a preference for PCR tests over LFT (quote 15).
Lack of awareness
A lack of awareness prevented some students from accessing the service (quote 16). Students thought that more could be done to promote awareness of testing, particularly among those who do not have a strong network of peers (quote 17).
Access
A number of practical barriers were described; including access issues (quote 18), and issues with the timing and location of test sites (quote 19).
Risk of exposure at the testing site
Concerns of catching the virus at or on route to the testing centre prevented some students from taking a test (quote 20), particularly among those who had to travel long distances (quote 21). It was noted that cases of the virus were high among the student population, and some considered the risk of exposure to outweigh the benefits of getting tested (quote 22).
Using test results to inform behavioural decisions
Most students were very aware of the ongoing debate about the accuracy of LFTs, and reported having discussions with their friends, families, and in some cases, with the university about how accurate the tests were (quote 23). Tests were considered just one piece of information from which to inform decisions (quote 24), often being used alongside other key indicators – such as whether or not the person had been in contact with someone with the virus, of if they had any symptoms (quote 25). Some students reported that testing had reassured them that they had ‘done everything they could’ before travelling (quote 32). Despite limitations, tests were seen as ‘good enough’ to inform decisions (quote 26), and although students reported feeling somewhat reassured by negative test results (quote 29), they described being unlikely to drastically increase contact or to visit anyone considered to be vulnerable (quote 31). Activities were limited to those that were considered essential, such as shopping and exercise (quote 30) and it was recognised that any negative rest result was only “valid” for a limited time, and any subsequent contact was a potential risk (quote 27 and 28).
There was an acknowledgement that receiving a negative test could increase close contact behaviour, but generally it was noted that students who were likely to break the rules would do so regardless of testing status (quote 33).
DISCUSSION
Our research revealed that one in 10 students had the recommended two LFTs and highlighted demographic disparities in uptake by ethnic group, level of study and year group, and faculty. Data collected from survey and interview participants suggested that whilst students were generally positive about testing, key barriers to uptake remain. Our qualitative data revealed that many participants were motivated to take tests to protect those around them and avoid transmitting the virus to their friends and family. However, students reported a number of barriers to uptake; including a lack of awareness of the testing service, problems accessing the service, a lack of knowledge and understanding of testing procedures, and concerns about the accuracy and safety of testing. Although overall uptake was low, many of those who did not take tests described a lack of need for tests, either because they were not travelling, were unlikely to have been exposed to the virus, were already isolating, or were tested elsewhere.
Mass testing for COVID-19 is relatively new, and results of testing programmes are ongoing. Our data revealed low testing uptake, particularly among those from ethnic minority groups. Similar patterns in testing uptake have been observed with some other public health interventions such as home HIV testing 20. The mass COVID-19 LFT pilot conducted in Liverpool also reported a lower test uptake, as well as a higher positivity rate, among those from minority ethnic groups 21. The very small number of positive tests during the study period precluded analyses on demographic variations in positivity, both due to a lack of power and the potential for deductive disclosure. Further research is urgently needed to explore barriers to testing among these populations and co-create interventions to support the uptake of tests if and when required.
In line with findings from other universities, students engaging in testing were motivated to do so to protect those around them 22. Students were well informed about the limitations of tests, often describing test results as just one piece of information, and using them with caution to inform their behaviour 23. Many students had done their own research, had discussions with their friends, family, tutors and lecturers to maximise their knowledge of testing. This highlights the need for improved communications from universities to enable students to make their own informed decisions. Indeed, recent research that has shown basic and simple messages may not be suitable for communicating complex information about how to behave during the pandemic 24 and students are likely to appreciate having the opportunity to access information about the sensitivity and specificity of the tests. Despite concerns that testing would increase risky contact, we did not find evidence to support this. Students were well informed about the limitations of the tests and used them with caution to inform behavioural decisions.
A key strength of this research is the use of a mixed methods approach. Additionally, though some other universities have evaluated their LFT programmes 25, 26 we are not aware of any reporting data on testing uptake and exploring demographic variations in uptake among the whole student body. This is a unique strength of our work and provides crucial information to inform future university testing strategies. Our work identified several ways in which engagement may be enhanced. As many students had not been aware of the testing service, a persuasive, targeted and personalised advertising campaign may increase uptake. To maximise engagement, advertisements should be co-created with the intended recipients of campaign. Such a campaign should include encouragement from trusted sources, and emphasise the benefits of testing to encourage participation among those who may be apathetic. It would also need to reassure those who are anxious about accessing the testing services.
A limitation of the analyses on testing uptake is that denominator was all students enrolled at the university. The university doesn’t hold comprehensive and reliable information on which students were resident in Bristol during the testing period. However, in our sensitivity analysis in which excluded students who were likely not to be in Bristol at the time of testing the findings were little altered. A key limitation of the survey and interview data is that participant recruitment occurred via social media, and it is likely key communities (e.g., those who do not engage with university managed social media accounts) were missed.
Conclusions
LFT continues to play an important and expanding role in the UK’s COVID strategy 3, 4. If regular LFT is considered appropriate and worthwhile going forwards then work is needed to monitor trends in testing uptake among student, and other, populations. Importantly, we need to strive for equity in access to and uptake of testing. Our findings should be used to inform the wider debate around the usefulness and appropriateness of the widespread use of LFT for asymptomatic people.
Data Availability
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Conflict of interests
None declared.
Funding
Clare French, Sarah Denford, Ellen Brooks-Pollock, Helena Wehling and Matthew Hickman are supported by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at the University of Bristol in partnership with Public Health England. Ellen Brooks-Pollock is funded via the JUNIPER Consortium MRC grant MR/V038613/1 and MRC grant MC/PC/19067. 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.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Ethical approval was provided by the University of Bristol – Ethical approval was obtained from University of Bristol faculty ethics committee (Reference 115084). All interview participants verbally consented to take part in the study.
Supplement 1. Survey
Demographics
Age [free text]
Sex [free text]
Ethnic group [free text]
Living situation
Which best describes you
Undergraduate student living on campus
Undergraduate student living off campus
Postgraduate student living on campus
Postgraduate student living off campus
Staff
Other
Student Year group
Year one
Year two
Year three
Year four
Postgraduate
Other /NA
Testing
Have you taken a test as part of university testing?
Yes
No
[IF YES TO Q2]
How many tests have you taken as part of university testing?
One
Two
Other
How many tests were negative?
Motives
What made you decide to get tested? (tick all that apply)
I want to return to “normal”
I want to protect others
I want to protect myself
I want to see vulnerable family members
My friends and/or family asked me to get tested
It gives me peace of mind
People I know are doing it
My household were doing it
I have symptoms
I am curious
I want to help to fight the virus
I think it’s the right thing to do
I was told to get tested
The testing site is convenient
Other
Testing experience
How easy was it to be tested?
Very easy
Somewhat easy
Neither easy nor difficult
Somewhat difficult
Very difficult
If difficult, please describe what the difficulty was (free text)
Attitudes to testing
What would you say your view of repeat testing is?
Very negative
Somewhat negative
Somewhat positive
Very positive
How likely are you to get tested again?
Very unlikely
Unlikely
Neither likely or unlikely
Likely
Very likely
What might stop you being tested in the future?
If I don’t have time
If my allocated slot isn’t convenient
I’m worried I might have to wait a long time at the testing site
The location of the test was not convenient
The testing experience was unpleasant
I’m worried about catching the virus by going for a test
I’m worried about having to self-isolate
I’m worried I wouldn’t have enough practical support if I needed to self-isolate after a positive test
I don’t know how this will help me or the people around me
I’m worried that this is a waste of resources
I don’t think it’s important
I think this might take away tests from someone who needs it more than me
I don’t think the tests are accurate
The people I live with don’t want me to get tested
I’m worried about the impact on my household if I test positive
I’m worried I might have to provide details of my contacts if I test positive
I’m concerned about who will have access to my data
I am concerned about how my data will be used
Other, please state
If you tested positive, how easy would it be for you to self-isolate?
Very difficult
Difficult
Neither easy nor difficult
Easy
Very easy
Impact of test result
Which of these statements best describes what a negative test means
The person is definitely not infectious
The person is probably not infectious
The person is probably infectious
The person is definitely infectious
I don’t know
Thinking about the 14 days after your last test result, how often have you followed government advice on social distancing?
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Not at all
Supplement 2 – semi-structured topic guide
[Students who did engage in the testing service offered by the University]
What made you decide to get tested the university?
What was your initial reaction to university testing?
Did you have any concerns about getting tested?
Were any of your household planning to have a test?
How important / necessary?
Can you tell me about your experience of getting tested?
What was it like?
What worked well?
What was the most difficult part of testing?
What did you think of the messaging you received about testing?
What information did you receive about how to take the test?
What information did you receive about the test result?
Was anything unclear or confusing?
What (if anything) was missing?
How did you feel when you received a negative test result?
What did this mean for you?
What did this allow you to do?
What didn’t this allow you to do?
Did you have any concerns about your result?
Worried about testing positive?
How problematic would a positive test result have been?
If necessary, would you be willing to get tested again?
Why?
What might influence this decision?
Are there any situations that it would be particularly important to get tested?
What could be done to make it better / easier for people to test/isolate?
What is it like being a student at this time?
Is there anything else you would like to say about asymptomatic testing?
[for those who tested positive]
What did you do when you received a positive test result?
What did this mean to you?
What does the term self-isolation mean to you?
Can you tell me about your experiences of having to self-isolate?
What steps did you take?
What was the most difficult part of having to self-isolate?
What did you do to overcome any problems you had?
What would have helped you overcome any problems that you had?
Do you think having to self-isolate had any impact on your health/wellbeing in anyway?
Were there any times that you were not able to self-isolate?
Why? What happened?
What support did you have to help you with daily testing and self-isolation?
What did you think of the support?
What support did you need? / what was missing?
[Students who did not engage in the testing service offered by the University]
What made you decide not to get tested the university?
What was your initial reaction to university testing?
Did you have any concerns about getting tested?
How important / necessary do you think it is to be tested?
Were any of your household planning to have a test?
How problematic would a positive test result have been?
What (if anything) would make you more likely to be tested in the future?
Practical / logistical support
Reassurance
Social pressure
Incentives
What did you think of the information or advice you had about testing?
How clear was the information about how to take the test?
How clear was the information about the test result?
Was anything unclear or confusing?
What (if anything) was missing?
If necessary, would you be willing to get tested again?
Why?
What might influence this decision?
What could be done to make it better / easier for people to test/isolate?
Is there anything else you would like to say about asymptomatic testing?
Supplement 3. Demographic data by testing group among survey respondents
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Beccy Bridges and Dudley Trueman for providing us with University of Bristol student demographics and testing uptake data, and Natalie Seaton-Lucas for providing us with contextual information on the University of Bristol testing programme.
