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.

Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101552874 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2044-6055 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 20446055 NLM ISO Abbreviation: BMJ Open Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: [London] : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, 2011-

COVID-19*/diagnosis ; COVID-19*/epidemiology ; COVID-19 Testing*/methods ; COVID-19 Testing*/statistics & numerical data ; SARS-CoV-2* ; Specimen Handling*/methods; Humans ; Female ; Male ; Adult ; Universities ; Middle Aged ; Young Adult ; Cohort Studies ; Washington/epidemiology ; Self-Testing ; Adolescent ; Aged ; Pandemics ; Feasibility Studies

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.
Competing Interests: Competing interests: HYC reports consulting with Ellume, Pfizer, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Glaxo Smith Kline and Merck. HYC received research funding from Gates Ventures, Sanofi Pasteur and support and reagents from Ellume and Cepheid outside of the submitted work. GG received research grants and research support from the US National Institutes of Health, the University of Washington, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Gilead Sciences, Alere Technologies, Merck & Co., Janssen Pharmaceutica, Cerus Corporation, ViiV Healthcare, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche Molecular Systems, Abbott Molecular Diagnostics and THERA Technologies/TaiMed Biologics, all outside of the submitted work.
(© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81. (PMID: 18929686)
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021 Sep 17;8(11):ofab464. (PMID: 34805425)
Nat Commun. 2022 Sep 6;13(1):5240. (PMID: 36068236)
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Dec 1;4(12):e2137189. (PMID: 34902039)
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 Jan 28;71(4):132-138. (PMID: 35085223)
JMIR Form Res. 2022 Oct 18;6(10):e35426. (PMID: 36041004)
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Sep 03;70(35):1195-1200. (PMID: 34473687)
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Jan 29;70(4):118-122. (PMID: 33507894)
Clin Chem. 2021 Dec 30;68(1):143-152. (PMID: 34286830)
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Nov 20;69(46):1743-1747. (PMID: 33211678)
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Oct 02;69(39):1416-1418. (PMID: 33001871)
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Jun 1;4(6):e2116425. (PMID: 34170303)
PLoS One. 2021 Nov 4;16(11):e0258738. (PMID: 34735480)
Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2021 Jun;5(6):428-436. (PMID: 33751952)
Emerg Infect Dis. 2021 Nov;27(11):2776-2785. (PMID: 34586058)
PLoS One. 2021 Dec 30;16(12):e0261956. (PMID: 34969053)
BMC Public Health. 2024 Feb 15;24(1):485. (PMID: 38360568)
J Clin Microbiol. 2021 Apr 20;59(5):. (PMID: 33563599)
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208. (PMID: 31078660)
PLoS One. 2022 Aug 29;17(8):e0272820. (PMID: 36037207)
Emerg Infect Dis. 2022 Jul;28(7):1366-1374. (PMID: 35642474)
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Jan 08;70(1):14-19. (PMID: 33411699)
Microbiol Spectr. 2021 Oct 31;9(2):e0108921. (PMID: 34643445)

Keywords: COVID-19; Feasibility Studies; Observational Study; PUBLIC HEALTH

Date Created: 20240604 Date Completed: 20240604 Latest Revision: 20240612

20240612

PMC11163660

10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081837

38834321