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

Huijun Li, Megha Kalra, Lin Zhu, Deonna M. Ackermann, Melody Taba, Carissa Bonner and Katy J.L. Bell
Additional contact information
Huijun Li: Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Megha Kalra: Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Lin Zhu: Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Deonna M. Ackermann: Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Melody Taba: Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Carissa Bonner: Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Katy J.L. Bell: Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Medical Decision Making, 2024, vol. 44, issue 4, 437-450

Abstract: Objective To investigate the potential impacts of optimizing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rapid antigen test (RAT) self-testing diagnostic accuracy information. Design Online randomized experiment using hypothetical scenarios: in scenarios 1 to 3 (RAT result positive), the posttest probability was considered to be very high (likely true positives), and in scenarios 4 and 5 (RAT result negative), the posttest probability was considered to be moderately high (likely false negatives). Setting December 12 to 22, 2022, during the mixed-variant Omicron wave in Australia. Participants Australian adults. Intervention: diagnostic accuracy of a COVID-19 self-RAT presented in a health literacy-sensitive way; usual care: diagnostic accuracy information provided by the manufacturer; control: no diagnostic accuracy information. Main Outcome Measure Intention to self-isolate. Results A total of 226 participants were randomized (control n  = 75, usual care n  = 76, intervention n  = 75). More participants in the intervention group correctly interpreted the meaning of the diagnostic accuracy information ( P  = 0.08 for understanding sensitivity, P  

Keywords: diagnostic accuracy; risk communication; COVID-19; rapid antigen tests; consumer self tests (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X241242131 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:4:p:437-450

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241242131

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().