文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2025

评估消费者如何解读和应对家用 COVID-19 自测试剂盒的结果:一项随机临床试验。

Assessing How Consumers Interpret and Act on Results From At-Home COVID-19 Self-test Kits: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

机构信息

Center for Medicine in the Media, Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, New Hampshire.

The Lisa Schwartz Foundation for Truth in Medicine, Norwich, Vermont.

出版信息

JAMA Intern Med. 2022 Mar 1;182(3):332-341. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.8075.


DOI:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.8075
PMID:35099501
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8804977/
Abstract

IMPORTANCE: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized SARS-CoV-2 rapid at-home self-test kits for individuals with and without symptoms. How appropriately users interpret and act on the results of at-home COVID-19 self-tests is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess how users of at-home COVID-19 self-test kits interpret and act on results when given instructions authorized by the FDA, instructions based on decision science principles, or no instructions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized clinical trial was conducted of 360 adults in the US who were recruited in April 2021 to complete an online survey on their interpretation of at-home COVID-19 self-test results. Participants were given 1 of 3 instruction types and were presented with 1 of 4 risk scenarios. Participants were paid $5 and had a median survey completion time of 8.7 minutes. Data analyses were performed from June to July 2021. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to receiving either the FDA-authorized instructions (authorized), the intervention instructions (intervention), or no instructions (control), and to 1 of 4 scenarios: 3 with a high pretest probability of infection (COVID-19 symptoms and/or a close contact with COVID-19) and 1 with low pretest probability (no symptoms and no contact). The intervention instructions were designed using decision science principles. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of participants in the high pretest probability scenarios choosing to quarantine per federal recommendations and perceived probabilities of infection given a negative or positive COVID-19 test result. A Bonferroni correction accounted for multiple comparisons (3 instruction types × 4 scenarios; α = 0.004). RESULTS: After excluding 22 individuals who completed the survey too quickly, the responses of 338 participants (median [IQR] age, 38 [31 to 48] years; 154 (46%) women; 215 (64%) with a college degree or higher) were included in the study analysis. Given a positive test result, 95% (322 of 338; 95% CI, 0.92 to 0.97) of the total participants appropriately chose to quarantine regardless of which instructions they had received. Given a negative test result, participants in the high pretest probability scenarios were more likely to fail to quarantine appropriately with the authorized instructions (33%) than with the intervention (14%; 95% CI for the 19% difference, 6% to 31%; P = .004) or control (24%; 95% CI for the 9% difference, -4% to 23%; P = .02). In the low pretest probability scenario, the proportion choosing unnecessary quarantine was higher with the authorized instructions (31%) than with the intervention (22%; 95% CI for the 9% difference, -14% to 31%) or control (10%; 95% CI for the 21% difference, 0.5% to 41%)-neither comparison was statistically significant (P = .05 and P = .20 respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this randomized clinical trial indicate that at-home COVID-19 self-test kit users relying on the authorized instructions may not follow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's quarantine recommendations, producing unintended risks and unnecessary disruptions. Redesigned instructions that follow decision science principles may improve compliance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04758299.

摘要

重要性:美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)授权了针对有症状和无症状个体的 SARS-CoV-2 快速家用自我检测试剂盒。目前尚不清楚用户如何恰当地解释和处理家用 COVID-19 自我检测的结果。

目的:评估当用户收到 FDA 授权的说明、基于决策科学原则的说明或没有说明时,他们如何解释和处理家用 COVID-19 自我检测结果。

设计、设置和参与者:这是一项在美国进行的随机临床试验,共有 360 名成年人参与,他们于 2021 年 4 月完成了一项关于他们对家用 COVID-19 自我检测结果解释的在线调查。参与者被随机分配到 3 种说明类型之一,并被呈现 4 种风险情景之一。参与者获得 5 美元的报酬,完成调查的中位数时间为 8.7 分钟。数据分析于 2021 年 6 月至 7 月进行。

干预措施:参与者被随机分配接受以下 3 种说明类型之一:FDA 授权的说明(授权)、干预说明(干预)或没有说明(对照),并被分配到 4 种情景之一:3 种情景的感染前验概率较高(COVID-19 症状和/或与 COVID-19 密切接触),1 种情景的感染前验概率较低(无症状且无接触)。干预说明是根据决策科学原则设计的。

主要结果和测量指标:在高感染前验概率情景中,选择按照联邦建议进行隔离的参与者比例,以及在 COVID-19 检测结果为阴性或阳性时感知感染的概率。采用 Bonferroni 校正进行多重比较(3 种说明类型×4 种情景;α=0.004)。

结果:在排除了 22 名完成调查过快的个体后,338 名参与者(中位数[IQR]年龄为 38 [31 至 48]岁;154 名[46%]女性;215 名[64%]具有大学学历或以上)的应答被纳入研究分析。对于阳性检测结果,无论接受哪种说明,总共有 95%(332 名/338 名;95%CI,0.92 至 0.97)的参与者恰当地选择了隔离。对于阴性检测结果,在高感染前验概率情景中,与授权说明(33%)相比,参与者更有可能不恰当地选择不进行隔离,而采用干预说明(14%;95%CI 为 19%的差异,6%至 31%;P=0.004)或对照说明(24%;95%CI 为 9%的差异,-4%至 23%;P=0.02)。在低感染前验概率情景中,与授权说明(31%)相比,采用干预说明(22%)或对照说明(10%)选择不必要隔离的比例更高,但差异无统计学意义(95%CI 为 9%的差异,-14%至 31%;P=0.05;95%CI 为 21%的差异,0.5%至 41%;P=0.20)。

结论和相关性:这项随机临床试验的结果表明,家用 COVID-19 自我检测试剂盒的使用者可能不会遵循疾病控制与预防中心的隔离建议,从而产生意想不到的风险和不必要的干扰。遵循决策科学原则重新设计的说明可能会提高依从性。

试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT04758299。

相似文献

[1]
Assessing How Consumers Interpret and Act on Results From At-Home COVID-19 Self-test Kits: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA Intern Med. 2022-3-1

[2]
Safety and Efficacy of Imatinib for Hospitalized Adults with COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Trials. 2020-10-28

[3]
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of four different strategies for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance in the general population (CoV-Surv Study): a structured summary of a study protocol for a cluster-randomised, two-factorial controlled trial.

Trials. 2021-1-8

[4]
Communicating the Imperfect Diagnostic Accuracy of COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Self-Tests: An Online Randomized Experiment.

Med Decis Making. 2024-5

[5]
Virtualized clinical studies to assess the natural history and impact of gut microbiome modulation in non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 a randomized, open-label, prospective study with a parallel group study evaluating the physiologic effects of KB109 on gut microbiota structure and function: a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled study.

Trials. 2021-4-2

[6]
Acceptance of SARS-CoV-2 Surveillance Testing Among Patients Receiving Dialysis: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

JAMA Netw Open. 2024-9-3

[7]
Examining the role of COVID-19 testing availability on intention to isolate: A Randomized hypothetical scenario.

PLoS One. 2022

[8]
Adequacy of Serial Self-performed SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Detection Testing for Longitudinal Mass Screening in the Workplace.

JAMA Netw Open. 2022-5-2

[9]
Factors Associated With US Adults' Likelihood of Accepting COVID-19 Vaccination.

JAMA Netw Open. 2020-10-1

[10]
At-home COVID-19 Test Instructions Frequently Misinterpreted.

JAMA. 2022-4-5

引用本文的文献

[1]
Point of Care Nucleic Acid Testing for Influenza-Like Illness: A Cost-Consequence Analysis for High-Risk Patients in Primary Care in Germany.

Adv Ther. 2025-5

[2]
Alternative Presentations of Overall and Statistical Uncertainty for Adults' Understanding of the Results of a Randomized Trial of a Public Health Intervention: Parallel Web-Based Randomized Trials.

JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2025-3-18

[3]
The Shift to Over-the-Counter Diagnostic Testing After RADx: Clinical, Regulatory, and Societal Implications.

IEEE Open J Eng Med Biol. 2024-12-9

[4]
Natural frequency tree- versus conditional probability formula-based training for medical students' estimation of screening test predictive values: a randomized controlled trial.

BMC Med Educ. 2024-10-24

[5]
Use of At-Home Medical Tests Among Older US Adults: A Nationally Representative Survey.

Inquiry. 2024

[6]
Communicating the Imperfect Diagnostic Accuracy of COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Self-Tests: An Online Randomized Experiment.

Med Decis Making. 2024-5

[7]
Self-tests for COVID-19: What is the evidence? A living systematic review and meta-analysis (2020-2023).

PLOS Glob Public Health. 2024-2-7

[8]
COVID-19 Testing Among People with HIV: A Population Level Analysis Based on Statewide Data in South Carolina.

AIDS Behav. 2024-10

[9]
Home-Based Testing and COVID-19 Isolation Recommendations, United States.

Emerg Infect Dis. 2023-9

[10]
Were SARS-CoV-2 self-tests used for their intended purpose? The experience in Belgium.

BMC Health Serv Res. 2023-6-29

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索