Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Testing behaviour may bias observational studies of vaccine effectiveness

View ORCID ProfilePaul Glasziou, View ORCID ProfileKirsten McCaffery, View ORCID ProfileErin Cvejic, View ORCID ProfileCarys Batcup, View ORCID ProfileJulie Ayre, View ORCID ProfileKristen Pickles, View ORCID ProfileCarissa Bonner
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.17.22269450
Paul Glasziou
1Director, Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty HS&M, Bond University, Gold Coast, Qld 4229
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Paul Glasziou
  • For correspondence: paul_glasziou@bond.edu.au
Kirsten McCaffery
2Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Kirsten McCaffery
Erin Cvejic
2Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Erin Cvejic
Carys Batcup
2Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Carys Batcup
Julie Ayre
2Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Julie Ayre
Kristen Pickles
2Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Kristen Pickles
Carissa Bonner
2Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Carissa Bonner
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Backgroun Recent observational studies have suggested that vaccines for the omicron variant of SARS-Cov2 may have little or no effect in preventing infection. However, the observed effects may be confounded by patient factors and preventive behaviours or vaccine-related differences in testing behaviour. To assess the potential degree of confounding, we aimed to estimate differences in testing behaviour between unvaccinated and vaccinated populations.

Methods We recruited 1,526 Australian adults for an online randomised study about COVID testing between October and November 2021, and collected self-reported vaccination status and three measures of COVID-19 testing behaviour. We examined the association between testing intentions and vaccination status in the cross-sectional baseline data of this trial.

Results Of the 1,526 participants (mean age 31 years): 22% had a COVID-19 test in the past month and 61% ever; 17% were unvaccinated, 11% were partially vaccinated (1 dose), 71% were fully vaccinated (2+ doses). Fully vaccinated participants were twice as likely (RR 2.2; 95% CI 1.8 to 2.8) to report positive COVID testing intentions than those who were unvaccinated (p<.001). Partially vaccinated participants had less positive intentions than those fully vaccinated (p<.001) but higher intentions than those who were unvaccinated (p=.002).

Discussion For all three measures vaccination predicted greater COVID testing intentions. If the unvaccinated tested at half the rate of the vaccinated, a true vaccine effectiveness of 30% could appear to be a “negative” observed vaccine effectiveness of -40%. Assessing vaccine effectiveness should use methods to account for differential testing behaviours. Test negative designs are currently the preferred option, but its assumptions should be more thoroughly examined.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This study was not specifically funded, but in-kind support was provided by authors with research fellowships. PG is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Investigator Grant (#1080042).CB is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)/Heart Foundation Early Career Fellowship (#1122788). RD is supported by a University of Sydney fellowship (#197589). KM is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Principal Research Fellowship (#1121110).

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:

University of Sydney Human Ethics, approval number # 2020/781

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

Footnotes

  • Competing Interest Statement

    The authors declare no competing interest

Data Availability

Please email carys.batcup{at}sydney.edu.au for information about the data

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted January 21, 2022.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Testing behaviour may bias observational studies of vaccine effectiveness
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Testing behaviour may bias observational studies of vaccine effectiveness
Paul Glasziou, Kirsten McCaffery, Erin Cvejic, Carys Batcup, Julie Ayre, Kristen Pickles, Carissa Bonner
medRxiv 2022.01.17.22269450; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.17.22269450
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Testing behaviour may bias observational studies of vaccine effectiveness
Paul Glasziou, Kirsten McCaffery, Erin Cvejic, Carys Batcup, Julie Ayre, Kristen Pickles, Carissa Bonner
medRxiv 2022.01.17.22269450; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.17.22269450

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS)
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (228)
  • Allergy and Immunology (504)
  • Anesthesia (110)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1240)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (206)
  • Dermatology (147)
  • Emergency Medicine (282)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (531)
  • Epidemiology (10023)
  • Forensic Medicine (5)
  • Gastroenterology (499)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (2453)
  • Geriatric Medicine (238)
  • Health Economics (479)
  • Health Informatics (1643)
  • Health Policy (753)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (636)
  • Hematology (248)
  • HIV/AIDS (533)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (11864)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (626)
  • Medical Education (252)
  • Medical Ethics (75)
  • Nephrology (268)
  • Neurology (2281)
  • Nursing (139)
  • Nutrition (352)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (454)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (537)
  • Oncology (1245)
  • Ophthalmology (377)
  • Orthopedics (134)
  • Otolaryngology (226)
  • Pain Medicine (158)
  • Palliative Medicine (50)
  • Pathology (324)
  • Pediatrics (730)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (313)
  • Primary Care Research (282)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2280)
  • Public and Global Health (4834)
  • Radiology and Imaging (837)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (492)
  • Respiratory Medicine (651)
  • Rheumatology (285)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (238)
  • Sports Medicine (227)
  • Surgery (267)
  • Toxicology (44)
  • Transplantation (125)
  • Urology (99)