TY - JOUR T1 - Behavioural barriers to COVID-19 testing in Australia: Two national surveys to identify barriers and estimate prevalence by health literacy level JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2021.08.26.21262649 SP - 2021.08.26.21262649 AU - Carissa Bonner AU - Carys Batcup AU - Julie Ayre AU - Kristen Pickles AU - Erin Cvejic AU - Tessa Copp AU - Samuel Cornell AU - Rachael Dodd AU - Jennifer Isautier AU - Brooke Nickel AU - Kirsten McCaffery Y1 - 2021/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/08/28/2021.08.26.21262649.abstract N2 - Background COVID-19 testing and contact tracing has been crucial in Australia’s prevention strategy. However, testing for COVID-19 is far from optimal, and behavioural barriers are unknown. Study 1 aimed to identify the range of barriers to testing. Study 2 aimed to estimate prevalence in a nationally relevant sample to target interventions.Methods Study 1: National longitudinal COVID-19 survey from April-November 2020. Testing barriers were included in the June survey (n=1369). Open responses were coded using the COM-B framework (capability-opportunity-motivation). Study 2: Barriers from Study 1 were presented to a new nationally representative sample in November to estimate prevalence (n=2869). Barrier prevalence was analysed by health literacy level using Chi square tests.Results Study 1: 49% strongly agreed to get tested for symptoms, and 69% would self-isolate. Concern about pain was the top barrier from a provided list (11%), but 32 additional barriers were identified from open responses and coded to the COM-B framework. Study 2: The most prevalent barriers were motivation issues (e.g. don’t believe symptoms are COVID-19: 28%, few local cases: 18%). Capability issues were also common (e.g. not sure symptoms are bad enough: 19%, not sure whether symptoms need testing: 15%). Many barriers were more prevalent amongst people with low compared to high health literacy, including motivation (preference to self isolate: 21% vs 12%, pain: 15% vs 9%) and capability (not sure symptom needs testing: 12% vs 8%, not sure how to test:11% vs 4%).Conclusion Even in a health system with free and widespread access to COVID-19 testing, motivation and capability barriers were prevalent issues, particularly for people with lower health literacy. This study highlights the important of diagnosing behaviour barriers to target public health interventions for COVID-19 and future pandemics.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was not specifically funded, but in-kind support was provided by authors with research fellowships.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:University of Sydney Human EthicsAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesPlease email carys.batcup@sydney.edu.au for information about the data ER -