Skill transfer, affordances and dexterity in different climbing environments.

Ludovic Seifert,Léo Wattebled,Maxime L’Hermette,Gautier Bideault,R. Hérault,Keith Davids

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2013.06.006

IF: 2.397

2013-12-01

Human Movement Science

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

COVID-19 testing and reporting behaviours in England across different sociodemographic groups: a population-based study using testing data and data from community prevalence surveillance surveys

Sumali Bajaj,Siyu Chen,Richard Creswell,Reshania Naidoo,Joseph L-H Tsui,Olumide Kolade,George Nicholson,Brieuc Lehmann,James A Hay,Moritz U G Kraemer,Ricardo Aguas,Christl A Donnelly,Tom Fowler,Susan Hopkins,Liberty Cantrell,Prabin Dahal,Lisa J White,Kasia Stepniewska,Merryn Voysey,Ben Lambert,EY-Oxford Health Analytics Consortium,Ma'ayan Amswych,Billie Andersen-Waine,Kweku Bimpong,Adam Bodley,Sophie Dickinson,Sabine Dittrich,Tracy Evans,Angus Ferguson-Lewis,Caroline Franco,Bo Gao,Rachel Hounsell,Muhammad Kasim,Claire Keene,Umar Mahmood,Melinda Mills,Ainura Moldokmatova,Sassy Molyneux,Randolph Ngwafor Anye,Jared Norman,Wirichada Pan-Ngum,Sunil Pokharel,Anastasiia Polner,Emily Rowe,Sompob Saralamba,Rima Shretta,Sheetal Silal,Marta Wanat

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(24)00169-9

Abstract:Background: Understanding underlying mechanisms of heterogeneity in test-seeking and reporting behaviour during an infectious disease outbreak can help to protect vulnerable populations and guide equity-driven interventions. The COVID-19 pandemic probably exerted different stresses on individuals in different sociodemographic groups and ensuring fair access to and usage of COVID-19 tests was a crucial element of England's testing programme. We aimed to investigate the relationship between sociodemographic factors and COVID-19 testing behaviours in England during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We did a population-based study of COVID-19 testing behaviours with mass COVID-19 testing data for England and data from community prevalence surveillance surveys (REACT-1 and ONS-CIS) from Oct 1, 2020, to March 30, 2022. We used mass testing data for lateral flow device (LFD; data for approximately 290 million tests performed and reported) and PCR (data for approximately 107 million tests performed and returned from the laboratory) tests made available for the general public and provided by date and self-reported age and ethnicity at the lower tier local authority (LTLA) level. We also used publicly available data on mean population size estimates for individual LTLAs, and data on ethnic groups, age groups, and deprivation indices for LTLAs. We did not have access to REACT-1 or ONS-CIS prevalence data disaggregated by sex or gender. Using a mechanistic causal model to debias the PCR testing data, we obtained estimates of weekly SARS-CoV-2 prevalence by both self-reported ethnic groups and age groups for LTLAs in England. This approach to debiasing the PCR (or LFD) testing data also estimated a testing bias parameter defined as the odds of testing in infected versus not infected individuals, which would be close to zero if the likelihood of test seeking (or seeking and reporting) was the same regardless of infection status. With confirmatory PCR data, we estimated false positivity rates, sensitivity, specificity, and the rate of decline in detection probability subsequent to reporting a positive LFD for PCR tests by sociodemographic groups. We also estimated the daily incidence, allowing us to calculate the fraction of cases captured by the testing programme. Findings: From March, 2021 onwards, individuals in the most deprived regions reported approximately half as many LFD tests per capita as individuals in the least deprived areas (median ratio 0·50 [IQR 0·44-0·54]). During the period October, 2020, to June, 2021, PCR testing patterns showed the opposite trend, with individuals in the most deprived areas performing almost double the number of PCR tests per capita than those in the least deprived areas (1·8 [1·7-1·9]). Infection prevalences in Asian or Asian British individuals were considerably higher than those of other ethnic groups during the alpha (B.1.1.7) and omicron (B.1.1.529) BA.1 waves. Our estimates indicate that the England Pillar 2 COVID-19 testing programme detected 26-40% of all cases (including asymptomatic cases) over the study period with no consistent differences by deprivation levels or ethnic groups. Testing biases for PCR were generally higher than those for LFDs, in line with the general policy of symptomatic and asymptomatic use of these tests. Deprivation and age were associated with testing biases on average; however, the uncertainty intervals overlapped across deprivation levels, although the age-specific patterns were more distinct. We also found that ethnic minorities and older individuals were less likely to use confirmatory PCR tests through most of the pandemic and that delays in reporting a positive LFD test were possibly longer in populations self-reporting as "Black; African; Black British or Caribbean". Interpretation: Differences in testing behaviours across sociodemographic groups might be reflective of the higher costs of self-isolation to vulnerable populations, differences in test accessibility, differences in digital literacy, and differing perceptions about the utility of tests and risks posed by infection. This study shows how mass testing data can be used in conjunction with surveillance surveys to identify gaps in the uptake of public health interventions both at fine-scale levels and across sociodemographic groups. It provides a framework for monitoring local interventions and yields valuable lessons for policy makers in ensuring an equitable response to future pandemics. Funding: UK Health Security Agency.
Electronic structure of the Abrikosov vortex core in arbitrary magnetic fields.

Golubov,Hartmann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PHYSREVLETT.72.3602

IF: 8.6

1994-05-30

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:
Studying the Long-term Impact of COVID-19 in Kids (SLICK). Healthcare use and costs in children and young people following community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection: protocol for an observational study using linked primary and secondary routinely collected healthcare data from England, Scotland and Wales

Olivia V Swann,Nazir I Lone,Ewen M Harrison,Laurie A Tomlinson,Alex J Walker,Michael J Seaborne,Louisa Pollock,James Farrell,Peter S Hall,Sohan Seth,Thomas C Williams,Jennifer Preston,J Samantha Ainsworth,Freya F Semple,J Kenneth Baillie,Srinivasa V Katikireddi,Ashley Akbari,Ronan Lyons,Colin R Simpson,Malcolm G Semple,Ben Goldacre,Sinead Brophy,Aziz Sheikh,Annemarie B Docherty

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063271

IF: 3.006

2022-11-10

BMJ Open

Abstract:Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 infection rarely causes hospitalisation in children and young people (CYP), but mild or asymptomatic infections are common. Persistent symptoms following infection have been reported in CYP but subsequent healthcare use is unclear. We aim to describe healthcare use in CYP following community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection and identify those at risk of ongoing healthcare needs. Methods and analysis: We will use anonymised individual-level, population-scale national data linking demographics, comorbidities, primary and secondary care use and mortality between 1 January 2019 and 1 May 2022. SARS-CoV-2 test data will be linked from 1 January 2020 to 1 May 2022. Analyses will use Trusted Research Environments: OpenSAFELY in England, Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank in Wales and Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 in Scotland (EAVE-II). CYP aged ≥4 and <18 years who underwent SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) testing between 1 January 2020 and 1 May 2021 and those untested CYP will be examined.The primary outcome measure is cumulative healthcare cost over 12 months following SARS-CoV-2 testing, stratified into primary or secondary care, and physical or mental healthcare. We will estimate the burden of healthcare use attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infections in the 12 months after testing using a matched cohort study of RT-PCR positive, negative or untested CYP matched on testing date, with adjustment for confounders. We will identify factors associated with higher healthcare needs in the 12 months following SARS-CoV-2 infection using an unmatched cohort of RT-PCR positive CYP. Multivariable logistic regression and machine learning approaches will identify risk factors for high healthcare use and characterise patterns of healthcare use post infection. Ethics and dissemination: This study was approved by the South-Central Oxford C Health Research Authority Ethics Committee (13/SC/0149). Findings will be preprinted and published in peer-reviewed journals. Analysis code and code lists will be available through public GitHub repositories and OpenCodelists with meta-data via HDR-UK Innovation Gateway.
KCL TEST: an open-source inspired asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 surveillance programme in an academic institution

Joana Reis de Andrade,Edward Scourfield,Shilpa Lekhraj Peswani-Sajnani,Kate Poulton,Thomas Ap Rees,Paniz Khooshemehri,George Doherty,Stephanie Ong,Iustina-Francisca Ivan,Negin Goudarzi,Isaac Gardiner,Estelle Caine,Thomas J A Maguire,Daniel Leightley,Luis Torrico,Alex Gasulla,Angel Menendez-Vazquez,Ana Maria Ortega-Prieto,Suzanne Pickering,Jose M Jimenez-Guardeño,Rahul Batra,Sona Rubinchik,Aaron V F Tan,Amy Griffin,David Sherrin,Stelios Papaioannou,Celine Trouillet,Hannah E Mischo,Victoriano Giralt,Samantha Wilson,Martin Kirk,Stuart J D Neil,Rui Pedro Galao,Jo Martindale,Charles Curtis,Mark Zuckerman,Reza Razavi,Michael H Malim,Rocio T Martinez-Nunez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biomethods/bpae046

2024-06-20

Abstract:Rapid and accessible testing was paramount in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our university established KCL TEST: a SARS-CoV-2 asymptomatic testing programme that enabled sensitive and accessible PCR testing of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva. Here, we describe our learnings and provide our blueprint for launching diagnostic laboratories, particularly in low-resource settings. Between December 2020 and July 2022, we performed 158277 PCRs for our staff, students, and their household contacts, free of charge. Our average turnaround time was 16 h and 37 min from user registration to result delivery. KCL TEST combined open-source automation and in-house non-commercial reagents, which allows for rapid implementation and repurposing. Importantly, our data parallel those of the UK Office for National Statistics, though we detected a lower positive rate and virtually no delta wave. Our observations strongly support regular asymptomatic community testing as an important measure for decreasing outbreaks and providing safe working spaces. Universities can therefore provide agile, resilient, and accurate testing that reflects the infection rate and trend of the general population. Our findings call for the early integration of academic institutions in pandemic preparedness, with capabilities to rapidly deploy highly skilled staff, as well as develop, test, and accommodate efficient low-cost pipelines.
Group Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Allows for Up to 10-Fold Efficiency Increase Across Realistic Scenarios and Testing Strategies

Claudio M. Verdun,Tim Fuchs,Pavol Harar,Dennis Elbrachter,David S. Fischer,Julius Berner,Philipp Grohs,Fabian J. Theis,Felix Krahmer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.583377

IF: 5.2

2021-01-01

Frontiers in Public Health

Abstract:Background: Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, demand for diagnostic testing has increased drastically, resulting in shortages of necessary materials to conduct the tests and overwhelming the capacity of testing laboratories. The supply scarcity and capacity limits affect test administration: priority must be given to hospitalized patients and symptomatic individuals, which can prevent the identification of asymptomatic and presymptomatic individuals and hence effective tracking and tracing policies. We describe optimized group testing strategies applicable to SARS-CoV-2 tests in scenarios tailored to the current COVID-19 pandemic and assess significant gains compared to individual testing. Methods: We account for biochemically realistic scenarios in the context of dilution effects on SARS-CoV-2 samples and consider evidence on specificity and sensitivity of PCR-based tests for the novel coronavirus. Because of the current uncertainty and the temporal and spatial changes in the prevalence regime, we provide analysis for several realistic scenarios and propose fast and reliable strategies for massive testing procedures. Key Findings: We find significant efficiency gaps between different group testing strategies in realistic scenarios for SARS-CoV-2 testing, highlighting the need for an informed decision of the pooling protocol depending on estimated prevalence, target specificity, and high- vs. low-risk population. For example, using one of the presented methods, all 1.47 million inhabitants of Munich, Germany, could be tested using only around 141 thousand tests if the infection rate is below 0.4% is assumed. Using 1 million tests, the 6.69 million inhabitants from the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, could be tested as long as the infection rate does not exceed 1%. Moreover, we provide an interactive web application, available at www.grouptexting.com, for visualizing the different strategies and designing pooling schemes according to specific prevalence scenarios and test configurations. Interpretation: Altogether, this work may help provide a basis for an efficient upscaling of current testing procedures, which takes the population heterogeneity into account and is fine-grained towards the desired study populations, e.g., mild/asymptomatic individuals vs. symptomatic ones but also mixtures thereof. Funding: German Science Foundation (DFG), German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Chan Zuckerberg Initiative DAF, and Austrian Science Fund (FWF).
Detecting COVID-19 infection hotspots in England using large-scale self-reported data from a mobile application: a prospective, observational study

Thomas Varsavsky,Mark S Graham,Liane S Canas,Sajaysurya Ganesh,Joan Capdevila Pujol,Carole H Sudre,Benjamin Murray,Marc Modat,M Jorge Cardoso,Christina M Astley,David A Drew,Long H Nguyen,Tove Fall,Maria F Gomez,Paul W Franks,Andrew T Chan,Richard Davies,Jonathan Wolf,Claire J Steves,Tim D Spector,Sebastien Ourselin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30269-3

Abstract:Background: As many countries seek to slow the spread of COVID-19 without reimposing national restrictions, it has become important to track the disease at a local level to identify areas in need of targeted intervention. Methods: In this prospective, observational study, we did modelling using longitudinal, self-reported data from users of the COVID Symptom Study app in England between March 24, and Sept 29, 2020. Beginning on April 28, in England, the Department of Health and Social Care allocated RT-PCR tests for COVID-19 to app users who logged themselves as healthy at least once in 9 days and then reported any symptom. We calculated incidence of COVID-19 using the invited swab (RT-PCR) tests reported in the app, and we estimated prevalence using a symptom-based method (using logistic regression) and a method based on both symptoms and swab test results. We used incidence rates to estimate the effective reproduction number, R(t), modelling the system as a Poisson process and using Markov Chain Monte-Carlo. We used three datasets to validate our models: the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Community Infection Survey, the Real-time Assessment of Community Transmission (REACT-1) study, and UK Government testing data. We used geographically granular estimates to highlight regions with rapidly increasing case numbers, or hotspots. Findings: From March 24 to Sept 29, 2020, a total of 2 873 726 users living in England signed up to use the app, of whom 2 842 732 (98·9%) provided valid age information and daily assessments. These users provided a total of 120 192 306 daily reports of their symptoms, and recorded the results of 169 682 invited swab tests. On a national level, our estimates of incidence and prevalence showed a similar sensitivity to changes to those reported in the ONS and REACT-1 studies. On Sept 28, 2020, we estimated an incidence of 15 841 (95% CI 14 023-17 885) daily cases, a prevalence of 0·53% (0·45-0·60), and R(t) of 1·17 (1·15-1·19) in England. On a geographically granular level, on Sept 28, 2020, we detected 15 (75%) of the 20 regions with highest incidence according to government test data. Interpretation: Our method could help to detect rapid case increases in regions where government testing provision is lower. Self-reported data from mobile applications can provide an agile resource to inform policy makers during a quickly moving pandemic, serving as a complementary resource to more traditional instruments for disease surveillance. Funding: Zoe Global, UK Government Department of Health and Social Care, Wellcome Trust, UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, UK National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council and British Heart Foundation, Alzheimer's Society, Chronic Disease Research Foundation.
Decision to self-isolate during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a rapid scoping review

Claire Marriott Keene,Sophie Dickinson,Reshania Naidoo,Billie Andersen-Waine,Angus Ferguson-Lewis,Anastasia Polner,Ma’ayan Amswych,Lisa White,Sassy Molyneux,Marta Wanat,EY-Oxford Health Analytics Consortium,Ainura Moldokmatova,Anastasiia Polner,Angus Ferguson-Lewis,Billie Andersen-Waine,Bo Gao,Caroline Franco,Claire Keene,Emily Rowe,Jared Norman,Kasia Stepniewska,Kweku Bimpong,Liberty Cantrell,Lisa J White,Joseph L-H Tsui,Ma'ayan Amswych,Marta Wanat,Melinda C Mills,Merryn Voysey,Muhammad Kasim,Prabin Dahal,Rachel Hounsell,Reshania Naidoo,Richard Lewis,Rima Shretta,Randolph Ngwafor Anye,Ricardo Aguas,Richard Creswell,Sabine Dittrich,Sassy Molyneux,Siyu Chen,Sheetal Silal,Sompob Saralamba,Sophie Dickinson,Sumali Bajaj,Sunil Pokharel,Tracy Evans,Umar Mahmood,Wirichada Pan-ngum,Ben Lambert,Keene,C. M.,Dickinson,S.,Naidoo,R.,Andersen-Waine,B.,Ferguson-Lewis,A.,Polner,A.,Amswych,M.,White,L.,Molyneux,S.,Wanat,M.,Moldokmatova,Polner,Ferguson-Lewis,Andersen-Waine,Gao,Franco,Keene,Rowe,Norman,Stepniewska,Bimpong,Cantrell,White,Tsui,Amswych,Wanat,Mills,Voysey,Kasim,Dahal,Hounsell,Naidoo,Lewis,Shretta,Anye,Aguas,Creswell,Dittrich,Molyneux,Chen,Silal,Saralamba,Dickinson,Bajaj,Pokharel,Evans,Mahmood,Pan-ngum,Lambert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084437

IF: 3.006

2024-03-31

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objective Testing for COVID-19 was a key component of the UK's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This strategy relied on positive individuals self-isolating to reduce transmission, making isolation the lynchpin in the public health approach. Therefore, we scoped evidence to systematically identify and categorise barriers and facilitators to compliance with self-isolation guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK, to inform public health strategies in future pandemics. Design A rapid scoping review was conducted. Search strategy Key terms were used to search literature databases (PubMed, Scopus and the WHO COVID-19 Research Database, on 7 November 2022), Google Scholar and stakeholder-identified manuscripts, ultimately including evidence published in English from UK-based studies conducted between 2020 and 2022. Data extraction and synthesis Data were extracted and synthesised into themes, organised broadly into capability, opportunity and motivation, and reviewed with key stakeholders from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA). Results We included 105 sources, with 63 identified from UKHSA and used to inform their decision-making during the pandemic. Influences on the decision to comply with isolation guidance were categorised into six themes: perceived ability to isolate; information and guidance; logistics; social influences, including trust; perceived value; and perceived consequences. Individuals continuously assessed these factors in deciding whether or not to comply with guidance and self-isolate. Conclusions Decisions to self-isolate after a positive test were influenced by multiple factors, including individuals' beliefs, concerns, priorities and personal circumstances. Future testing strategies must facilitate meaningful financial, practical and mental health support to allow individuals to overcome the perceived and actual negative consequences of isolating. Clear, consistent communication of the purpose and procedures of isolating will also be critical to support compliance with self-isolation guidance, and should leverage people's perceived value in protecting others. Building public trust is also essential, but requires investment before the next pandemic starts.

medicine, general & internal
Comparison of molecular testing strategies for COVID-19 control: a mathematical modelling study

Nicholas C Grassly,Margarita Pons-Salort,Edward P K Parker,Peter J White,Neil M Ferguson,Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team,Kylie Ainslie,Marc Baguelin,Samir Bhatt,Adhiratha Boonyasiri,Nick Brazeau,Lorenzo Cattarino,Helen Coupland,Zulma Cucunuba,Gina Cuomo-Dannenburg,Amy Dighe,Christl Donnelly,Sabine L van Elsland,Richard FitzJohn,Seth Flaxman,Keith Fraser,Katy Gaythorpe,Will Green,Arran Hamlet,Wes Hinsley,Natsuko Imai,Edward Knock,Daniel Laydon,Thomas Mellan,Swapnil Mishra,Gemma Nedjati-Gilani,Pierre Nouvellet,Lucy Okell,Manon Ragonnet-Cronin,Hayley A Thompson,H Juliette T Unwin,Michaela Vollmer,Erik Volz,Caroline Walters,Yuanrong Wang,Oliver J Watson,Charles Whittaker,Lilith Whittles,Xiaoyue Xi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30630-7

Abstract:Background: WHO has called for increased testing in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but countries have taken different approaches and the effectiveness of alternative strategies is unknown. We aimed to investigate the potential impact of different testing and isolation strategies on transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Methods: We developed a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission based on infectiousness and PCR test sensitivity over time since infection. We estimated the reduction in the effective reproduction number (R) achieved by testing and isolating symptomatic individuals, regular screening of high-risk groups irrespective of symptoms, and quarantine of contacts of laboratory-confirmed cases identified through test-and-trace protocols. The expected effectiveness of different testing strategies was defined as the percentage reduction in R. We reviewed data on the performance of antibody tests reported by the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and examined their implications for the use of so-called immunity passports. Findings: If all individuals with symptoms compatible with COVID-19 self-isolated and self-isolation was 100% effective in reducing onwards transmission, self-isolation of symptomatic individuals would result in a reduction in R of 47% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 32-55). PCR testing to identify SARS-CoV-2 infection soon after symptom onset could reduce the number of individuals needing to self-isolate, but would also reduce the effectiveness of self-isolation (around 10% would be false negatives). Weekly screening of health-care workers and other high-risk groups irrespective of symptoms by use of PCR testing is estimated to reduce their contribution to SARS-CoV-2 transmission by 23% (95% UI 16-40), on top of reductions achieved by self-isolation following symptoms, assuming results are available at 24 h. The effectiveness of test and trace depends strongly on coverage and the timeliness of contact tracing, potentially reducing R by 26% (95% UI 14-35) on top of reductions achieved by self-isolation following symptoms, if 80% of cases and contacts are identified and there is immediate testing following symptom onset and quarantine of contacts within 24 h. Among currently available antibody tests, performance has been highly variable, with specificity around 90% or lower for rapid diagnostic tests and 95-99% for laboratory-based ELISA and chemiluminescent assays. Interpretation: Molecular testing can play an important role in prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, especially among health-care workers and other high-risk groups, but no single strategy will reduce R below 1 at current levels of population immunity. Immunity passports based on antibody tests or tests for infection face substantial technical, legal, and ethical challenges. Funding: UK Medical Research Council.
Evaluation of a novel university-based testing platform to increase access to SARS-CoV-2 testing during the COVID-19 pandemic in a cohort study

Julia Catherine Bennett,Jessica O’Hanlon,Zachary Acker,Peter D Han,Devon McDonald,Tessa Wright,Kyle G Luiten,Lani Regelbrugge,Kathryn M McCaffrey,Brian Pfau,Caitlin R Wolf,Geoffrey S Gottlieb,James P Hughes,Marco Carone,Lea M Starita,Helen Y Chu,Ana A Weil

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081837

IF: 3.006

2024-06-05

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objective We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and utility of an unsupervised testing mechanism, in which participants pick up a swab kit, self-test (unsupervised) and return the kit to an on-campus drop box, as compared with supervised self-testing at staffed locations. Design University SARS-CoV-2 testing cohort. Setting Husky Coronavirus Testing provided voluntary SARS-CoV-2 testing at a university in Seattle, USA. Outcome measures We computed descriptive statistics to describe the characteristics of the study sample. Adjusted logistic regression implemented via generalised estimating equations was used to estimate the odds of a self-swab being conducted through unsupervised versus supervised testing mechanisms by participant characteristics, including year of study enrolment, pre-Omicron versus post-Omicron time period, age, sex, race, ethnicity, affiliation and symptom status. Results From September 2021 to July 2022, we received 92 499 supervised and 26 800 unsupervised self-swabs. Among swabs received by the laboratory, the overall error rate for supervised versus unsupervised swabs was 0.3% vs 4%, although this declined to 2% for unsupervised swabs by the spring of the academic year. Results were returned for 92 407 supervised (5% positive) and 25 836 unsupervised (4%) swabs from 26 359 participants. The majority were students (79%), 61% were female and most identified as white (49%) or Asian (34%). The use of unsupervised testing increased during the Omicron wave when testing demand was high and stayed constant in spring 2022 even when testing demand fell. We estimated the odds of using unsupervised versus supervised testing to be significantly greater among those <25 years of age (p<0.001), for Hispanic versus non-Hispanic individuals (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.3, p=0.01) and lower among individuals symptomatic versus asymptomatic or presymptomatic (0.9, 95% CI 0.8 to 0.9, p<0.001). Conclusions Unsupervised swab collection permitted increased testing when demand was high, allowed for access to a broader proportion of the university community and was not associated with a substantial increase in testing errors.

medicine, general & internal
Determining the acceptability of testing contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases to improve secondary case ascertainment

E Marchant,D Ready,G Wimbury,R Smithson,A Charlett,I Oliver

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdab079

2021-09-22

Abstract:Background: UK asymptomatic contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases are not routinely tested for SARS-CoV-2. Testing contacts may improve case ascertainment and reduce onward transmission. This study investigated the acceptability of SARS-CoV-2 testing among contacts of confirmed cases as an integral part of the contact-tracing process. Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive survey of case contacts was conducted in the UK. All contacts who completed a telephone call with the NHS Test and Trace Agile Lighthouse team were eligible for inclusion and were offered a molecular test. Consenting participants were sent a self-swab kit. Results: Of the 1523 individuals contacted, 602 (39.5%) accepted the test offer. Of the 240 (39.9%) samples returned for testing, 16.3% tested polymerase chain reaction-positive for SARS-CoV-2.Most individuals who declined with a reason (638/905; 70.5%) reported they had already taken or booked a SARS-CoV-2 test, or were part of a testing programme. Matched laboratory records confirmed 73.1% of those who declined were tested by another route. Conclusions: Most case contacts were tested, either through arranging a test by themselves or by accepting the study offer. Results demonstrate high acceptability, with substantial test positivity, indicating that there is public health benefit in offering tests to contacts as a routine part of the contact-tracing process.
Juvenile obsessive compulsive disorder in a paediatric dentistry set-up

Ruchi Ahuja,A. Shigli,G. Thakur,U. Jain

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2015-209864

2015-06-11

BMJ Case Reports

Abstract:Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is an anxiety disorder comprising uncontrollable thought processes and repetitive, ritualised behaviours that one feels compelled to perform. If an individual has OCD, he/she probably realises that his/her obsessive thoughts and compulsive behaviours are irrational but would still feel unable to resist them. Since a pedodontist's association with the child patient and parents is established at quite an early age, they should make good use of the opportunity to diagnose psychological disorders in child patients as well as adolescents. Prompt diagnosis in such cases would enable timely medical intervention and hence help in achieving a more cooperative dental patient to ensure instillation of a positive dental attitude. This endeavour highlights a case of a 10-year-old boy who had reported to a private dental set-up with dental problems and was concurrently diagnosed for OCD.
Estimating the impact of COVID-19 self-test availability and modifications in test-strategy on overall test uptake using an experimental vignette study

Colene L. Zomer,Floor Kroese,Jet G. Sanders,Riny Janssen,Marijn de Bruin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-54988-9

IF: 4.6

2024-03-13

Scientific Reports

Abstract:To inform future Dutch COVID-19 testing policies we did an experimental vignette study to investigate whether inclusion of the less reliable lateral flow tests (self-tests) would change test-uptake sufficiently to improve population-level test sensitivity. A representative sample (n = 3,270) participated in a 2-by-2 online experiment to evaluate the effects of test-guidelines including self-testing advice (IV1), and the effects of self-test availability (IV2) on expected test uptake (PCR test, self-test or no test) and sensitivity of the overall test strategy (primary outcome). Across four scenarios, changing test advice did not affect expected testing behaviour. Self-test availability, however, increased the timeliness of testing, the number of people testing, and overall test strategy sensitivity. Based on these findings, we recommend that (national) policy facilitates a supply of self-tests at home, for example through free and pro-active distribution of test-kits during a pandemic. This could substantially enhance the chances of timely detecting and isolating patients.

multidisciplinary sciences
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of four different strategies for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance in the general population (CoV-Surv Study): study protocol for a two-factorial randomized controlled multi-arm trial with cluster sampling

Andreas Deckert,Simon Anders,Manuela De Allegri,Hoa Thi Nguyen,Aurélia Souares,Shannon McMahon,Matthias Meurer,Robin Burk,Matthias Sand,Lisa Koeppel,Lena Maier Hein,Tobias Roß,Tim Adler,Tobias Siems,Lucia Brugnara,Stephan Brenner,Konrad Herbst,Daniel Kirrmaier,Yuanqiang Duan,Svetlana Ovchinnikova,Kathleen Boerner,Michael Marx,Hans-Georg Kräusslich,Michael Knop,Till Bärnighausen,Claudia Denkinger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05619-5

IF: 2.728

2021-09-26

Trials

Abstract:Background: To achieve higher effectiveness in population-based SARS-CoV-2 surveillance and to reliably predict the course of an outbreak, screening, and monitoring of infected individuals without major symptoms (about 40% of the population) will be necessary. While current testing capacities are also used to identify such asymptomatic cases, this rather passive approach is not suitable in generating reliable population-based estimates of the prevalence of asymptomatic carriers to allow any dependable predictions on the course of the pandemic. Methods: This trial implements a two-factorial, randomized, controlled, multi-arm, prospective, interventional, single-blinded design with cluster sampling and four study arms, each representing a different SARS-CoV-2 testing and surveillance strategy based on individuals' self-collection of saliva samples which are then sent to and analyzed by a laboratory. The targeted sample size for the trial is 10,000 saliva samples equally allocated to the four study arms (2500 participants per arm). Strategies differ with respect to tested population groups (individuals vs. all household members) and testing approach (without vs. with pre-screening survey). The trial is complemented by an economic evaluation and qualitative assessment of user experiences. Primary outcomes include costs per completely screened person, costs per positive case, positive detection rate, and precision of positive detection rate. Discussion: Systems for active surveillance of the general population will gain more importance in the context of pandemics and related disease prevention efforts. The pandemic parameters derived from such active surveillance with routine population monitoring therefore not only enable a prospective assessment of the short-term course of a pandemic, but also a more targeted and thus more effective use of local and short-term countermeasures. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov DRKS00023271 . Registered November 30, 2020, with the German Clinical Trials Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien).
Norwich COVID-19 testing initiative pilot: evaluating the feasibility of asymptomatic testing on a university campus

T Berger Gillam,J Cole,K Gharbi,E Angiolini,T Barker,P Bickerton,T Brabbs,J Chin,E Coen,S Cossey,R Davey,R Davidson,A Durrant,D Edwards,N Hall,S Henderson,M Hitchcock,N Irish,J Lipscombe,G Jones,G Parr,S Rushworth,N Shearer,R Smith,N Steel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdaa194

2020-10-30

Journal of Public Health

Abstract:Abstract Background There is a high prevalence of COVID-19 in university-age students, who are returning to campuses. There is little evidence regarding the feasibility of universal, asymptomatic testing to help control outbreaks in this population. This study aimed to pilot mass COVID-19 testing on a university research park, to assess the feasibility and acceptability of scaling up testing to all staff and students. Methods This was a cross-sectional feasibility study on a university research park in the East of England. All staff and students (5625) were eligible to participate. All participants were offered four PCR swabs, which they self-administered over two weeks. Outcome measures included uptake, drop-out rate, positivity rates, participant acceptability measures, laboratory processing measures, data collection and management measures. Results 798 (76%) of 1053 who registered provided at least one swab; 687 (86%) provided all four; 792 (99%) of 798 who submitted at least one swab had all negative results and 6 participants had one inconclusive result. There were no positive results. 458 (57%) of 798 participants responded to a post-testing survey, demonstrating a mean acceptability score of 4.51/5, with five being the most positive. Conclusions Repeated self-testing for COVID-19 using PCR is feasible and acceptable to a university population.

public, environmental & occupational health
Shaping care home COVID-19 testing policy: a protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of asymptomatic testing compared with standard care in care home staff (VIVALDI-CT)

Natalie Adams,Oliver Stirrup,James Blackstone,Maria Krutikov,Jackie A Cassell,Dorina Cadar,Catherine Henderson,Martin Knapp,Lara Goscé,Ruth Leiser,Martyn Regan,Iona Cullen-Stephenson,Robert Fenner,Arpana Verma,Adam Gordon,Susan Hopkins,Andrew Copas,Nick Freemantle,Paul Flowers,Laura Shallcross

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076210

IF: 3.006

2023-11-14

BMJ Open

Abstract:Introduction: Care home residents have experienced significant morbidity, mortality and disruption following outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2. Regular SARS-CoV-2 testing of care home staff was introduced to reduce transmission of infection, but it is unclear whether this remains beneficial. This trial aims to investigate whether use of regular asymptomatic staff testing, alongside funding to reimburse sick pay for those who test positive and meet costs of employing agency staff, is a feasible and effective strategy to reduce COVID-19 impact in care homes. Methods and analysis: The VIVALDI-Clinical Trial is a multicentre, open-label, cluster randomised controlled, phase III/IV superiority trial in up to 280 residential and/or nursing homes in England providing care to adults aged >65 years. All regular and agency staff will be enrolled, excepting those who opt out. Homes will be randomised to the intervention arm (twice weekly asymptomatic staff testing for SARS-CoV-2) or the control arm (current national testing guidance). Staff who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 will self-isolate and receive sick pay. Care providers will be reimbursed for costs associated with employing temporary staff to backfill for absence arising directly from the trial.The trial will be delivered by a multidisciplinary research team through a series of five work packages.The primary outcome is the incidence of COVID-19-related hospital admissions in residents. Secondary outcomes include the number and duration of outbreaks and home closures. Health economic and modelling analyses will investigate the cost-effectiveness and cost consequences of the testing intervention. A process evaluation using qualitative interviews will be conducted to understand intervention roll out and identify areas for optimisation to inform future intervention scale-up, should the testing approach prove effective and cost-effective. Stakeholder engagement will be undertaken to enable the sector to plan for results and their implications and to coproduce recommendations on the use of testing for policy-makers. Ethics and dissemination: The study has been approved by the London-Bromley Research Ethics Committee (reference number 22/LO/0846) and the Health Research Authority (22/CAG/0165). The results of the trial will be disseminated regardless of the direction of effect. The publication of the results will comply with a trial-specific publication policy and will include submission to open access journals. A lay summary of the results will also be produced to disseminate the results to participants. Trial registration number: ISRCTN13296529.
A Qualitative Evaluation of the Barriers and Enablers for Implementation of an Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Testing Service at the University of Nottingham: A Multi-Site Higher Education Setting in England

Holly Blake,Sarah Somerset,Ikra Mahmood,Neelam Mahmood,Jessica Corner,Jonathan K Ball,Chris Denning

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013140

2022-10-12

Abstract:Asymptomatic testing for SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been used to prevent and manage COVID-19 outbreaks in university settings, but few studies have explored their implementation. The aim of the study was to evaluate how an accredited asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing service (ATS) was implemented at the University of Nottingham, a multi-campus university in England, to identify barriers and enablers of implementation and to draw out lessons for implementing pandemic response initiatives in higher education settings. A qualitative interview study was conducted with 25 ATS personnel between May and July 2022. Interviews were conducted online, audio-recorded, and transcribed. Participants were asked about their experience of the ATS, barriers and enablers of implementation. Transcripts were thematically analysed. There were four overarching themes: (1) social responsibility and innovation, (2) when, how and why people accessed testing, (3) impact of the ATS on the spread of COVID-19, and (4) lessons learned for the future. In establishing the service, the institution was seen to be valuing its community and socially responsible. The service was viewed to be broadly successful as a COVID-19 mitigation approach. Challenges to service implementation were the rapidly changing pandemic situation and government advice, delays in service accreditation and rollout to staff, ambivalence towards testing and isolating in the target population, and an inability to provide follow-up support for positive cases within the service. Facilitators included service visibility, reduction in organisational bureaucracy and red tape, inclusive leadership, collaborative working with regular feedback on service status, flexibility in service delivery approaches and simplicity of saliva testing. The ATS instilled a perception of early 'return to normality' and impacted positively on staff feelings of safety and wellbeing, with wider benefits for healthcare services and local communities. In conclusion, we identified common themes that have facilitated or hindered the implementation of a SARS-CoV-2 testing service at a university in England. Lessons learned from ATS implementation will inform future pandemic response interventions in higher education settings.
Rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 by lateral flow assay: a field evaluation of self- and professional testing at UK community testing sites

Matthias E. Futschik,Samuel Johnson,Elena Turek,David Chapman,Simon Carr,Zareen Thorlu-Bangura,Paul E. Klapper,Malur Sudhanva,Andrew Dodgson,Joanna R. Cole-Hamilton,Nick Germanacos,Raghavendran Kulasegaran-Shylini,Edward Blandford,Sarah Tunkel,Timothy Peto,Susan Hopkins,Tom Fowler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2024.105654

IF: 14.481

2024-02-17

Journal of Clinical Virology

Abstract:Background The advent of lateral flow devices (LFDs) for SARS-CoV-2 detection enabled widespread use of rapid self-tests during the pandemic. While self-testing using LFDs is now common, whether self-testing provides comparable performance to professional testing was a key question that remained important for pandemic planning. Methods Three prospective multi-centre studies were conducted to compare the performance of self- and professional testing using LFDs. Participants tested themselves or were tested by trained (professional) testers at community testing sites in the UK. Corresponding qRT-PCR test results served as reference standard. The performance of Innova, Orient Gene and SureScreen LFDs by users (self) and professional testers was assessed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and kit failure (void) rates. Impact of age, sex and symptom status was analysed using logistic regression modelling. Results 16,617 participants provided paired tests, of which 15,418 were included in the analysis. Self-testing with Innova, Orient Gene or SureScreen LFDs achieved sensitivities of 50%, 53% or 72%, respectively, compared to qRT-PCR. Self and professional LFD testing showed no statistically different sensitivity with respect to corresponding qRT-PCR testing. Specificity was consistently equal to or higher than 99%. Sex and age had no or only marginal impact on LFD performance while sensitivity was significantly higher for symptomatic individuals. Sensitivity of LFDs increased strongly to up to 90% with higher levels of viral RNA measured by qRT-PCR. Conclusions Our results support SARS-CoV-2 self-testing with LFDs, especially for the detection of individuals whose qRT-PCR tests showed high viral concentrations.

virology
The effectiveness and efficiency of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies for patient and healthcare workers within acute NHS hospitals during an omicron-like period

Stephanie Evans,Nichola R. Naylor,Tom Fowler,Susan Hopkins,Julie Robotham

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-023-08948-9

IF: 3.7

2024-01-10

BMC Infectious Diseases

Abstract:Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing of hospitalised patients began in April-2020, with twice weekly healthcare worker (HCW) testing introduced in November-2020. Guidance recommending asymptomatic testing was withdrawn in August-2022. Assessing the impact of this decision from data alone is challenging due to concurrent changes in infection prevention and control practices, community transmission rates, and a reduction in ascertainment rate from reduced testing. Computational modelling is an effective tool for estimating the impact of this change.

infectious diseases
Estimates of the rate of infection and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease in a population sample from SE England

Philippa M. Wells,Katie J. Doores,Simon Couvreur,Rocio Martinez Nunez,Jeffrey Seow,Carl Graham,Sam Acors,Neophytos Kouphou,Stuart J.D. Neil,Richard S. Tedder,Pedro M. Matos,Kate Poulton,Maria Jose Lista,Ruth E. Dickenson,Helin Sertkaya,Thomas J.A. Maguire,Edward J. Scourfield,Ruth C. E. Bowyer,Deborah Hart,Aoife O’Bryne,Kathyrn J.A. Steel,Oliver Hemmings,Carolina Rosadas,Myra O. McClure,Joan Capedevilla-pujol,Jonathan Wolf,Sebastien Ourselin,Matthew A. Brown,Michael H. Malim,Tim Spector,Claire J. Steves

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.29.20162701

2020-07-30

Abstract:Abstract Background Understanding of the true asymptomatic rate of infection of SARS-CoV-2 is currently limited, as is understanding of the population-based seroprevalence after the first wave of COVID-19 within the UK. The majority of data thus far come from hospitalised patients, with little focus on general population cases, or their symptoms. Methods We undertook enzyme linked immunosorbent assay characterisation of IgM and IgG responses against SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and nucleocapsid protein of 431 unselected general-population participants of the TwinsUK cohort from South-East England, aged 19-86 (median age 48; 85% female). 382 participants completed prospective logging of 14 COVID-19 related symptoms via the COVID Symptom Study App, allowing consideration of serology alongside individual symptoms, and a predictive algorithm for estimated COVID-19 previously modelled on PCR positive individuals from a dataset of over 2 million. Findings We demonstrated a seroprevalence of 12% (51participants of 431). Of 48 seropositive individuals with full symptom data, nine (19%) were fully asymptomatic, and 16 (27%) were asymptomatic for core COVID-19 symptoms: fever, cough or anosmia. Specificity of anosmia for seropositivity was 95%, compared to 88% for fever cough and anosmia combined. 34 individuals in the cohort were predicted to be Covid-19 positive using the App algorithm, and of those, 18 (52%) were seropositive. Interpretation Seroprevalence amongst adults from London and South-East England was 12%, and 19% of seropositive individuals with prospective symptom logging were fully asymptomatic throughout the study. Anosmia demonstrated the highest symptom specificity for SARS-CoV-2 antibody response. Funding NIHR BRC, CDRF, ZOE global LTD, RST-UKRI/MRC
Cost of SARS-CoV-2 self-test distribution programmes by different modalities: a micro-costing study in five countries (Brazil, Georgia, Malaysia, Ethiopia and the Philippines)

Megan A Hansen,Nkgomeleng A Lekodeba,Joshua M Chevalier,Tom Ockhuisen,Paula del Rey-Puech,Elena Marban-Castro,Guillermo Zohar Martínez-Pérez,Sonjelle Shilton,Muhammad Radzi Abu Hassan,Vladimir Getia,Catiuscia Weinert-Mizuschima,Maria Isabelle Tenorio Bezerra,Lensa Chala,Robert Leong,Remilekun Peregino,Sara Keller,Ineke Spruijt,Cheryl C Johnson,Sarah J Girdwood,Brooke E Nichols

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078852

IF: 3.006

2024-04-19

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objective Diagnostic testing is an important tool to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, yet access to and uptake of testing vary widely 3 years into the pandemic. The WHO recommends the use of COVID-19 self-testing as an option to help expand testing access. We aimed to calculate the cost of providing COVID-19 self-testing across countries and distribution modalities. Design We estimated economic costs from the provider perspective to calculate the total cost and the cost per self-test kit distributed for three scenarios that differed by costing period (pilot, annual), the number of tests distributed (actual, planned, scaled assuming an epidemic peak) and self-test kit costs (pilot purchase price, 50% reduction). Setting We used data collected between August and December 2022 in Brazil, Georgia, Malaysia, Ethiopia and the Philippines from pilot implementation studies designed to provide COVID-19 self-tests in a variety of settings—namely, workplace and healthcare facilities. Results Across all five countries, 173 000 kits were distributed during pilot implementation with the cost/test distributed ranging from 12.78. The cost/self-test kit distributed was lowest in the scenario that assumed implementation over a longer period (year), with higher test demand (peak) and a test kit price reduction of 50% ($1.04–3.07). Across all countries and scenarios, test procurement occupied the greatest proportion of costs: 58–87% for countries with off-site self-testing (outside the workplace, for example, home) and 15–50% for countries with on-site self-testing (at the workplace). Staffing was the next key cost driver, particularly for distribution modalities that had on-site self-testing (29–35%) versus off-site self-testing (7–27%). Conclusions Our results indicate that it is likely to cost between 12.78 per test to distribute COVID-19 self-tests across common settings in five heterogeneous countries. Cost-effectiveness analyses using these results will allow policymakers to make informed decisions on optimally scaling up COVID-19 self-test distribution programmes across diverse settings and evolving needs.

medicine, general & internal

Skill transfer, affordances and dexterity in different climbing environments.

COVID-19 testing and reporting behaviours in England across different sociodemographic groups: a population-based study using testing data and data from community prevalence surveillance surveys

Electronic structure of the Abrikosov vortex core in arbitrary magnetic fields.

KCL TEST: an open-source inspired asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 surveillance programme in an academic institution

Group Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Allows for Up to 10-Fold Efficiency Increase Across Realistic Scenarios and Testing Strategies

Detecting COVID-19 infection hotspots in England using large-scale self-reported data from a mobile application: a prospective, observational study

Decision to self-isolate during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a rapid scoping review

Comparison of molecular testing strategies for COVID-19 control: a mathematical modelling study

Evaluation of a novel university-based testing platform to increase access to SARS-CoV-2 testing during the COVID-19 pandemic in a cohort study

Determining the acceptability of testing contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases to improve secondary case ascertainment

Juvenile obsessive compulsive disorder in a paediatric dentistry set-up

Estimating the impact of COVID-19 self-test availability and modifications in test-strategy on overall test uptake using an experimental vignette study

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of four different strategies for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance in the general population (CoV-Surv Study): study protocol for a two-factorial randomized controlled multi-arm trial with cluster sampling

Norwich COVID-19 testing initiative pilot: evaluating the feasibility of asymptomatic testing on a university campus

Shaping care home COVID-19 testing policy: a protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of asymptomatic testing compared with standard care in care home staff (VIVALDI-CT)

A Qualitative Evaluation of the Barriers and Enablers for Implementation of an Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Testing Service at the University of Nottingham: A Multi-Site Higher Education Setting in England

Rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 by lateral flow assay: a field evaluation of self- and professional testing at UK community testing sites

The effectiveness and efficiency of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies for patient and healthcare workers within acute NHS hospitals during an omicron-like period

Estimates of the rate of infection and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease in a population sample from SE England

Cost of SARS-CoV-2 self-test distribution programmes by different modalities: a micro-costing study in five countries (Brazil, Georgia, Malaysia, Ethiopia and the Philippines)