影响SARS-CoV-2诊断检测干预措施采用的因素:一项定性综述

IF 0.6 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Journal of Public Health in Africa Pub Date : 2025-04-28 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.4102/jphia.v16i2.619
Nuria S Nwachuku, Dachi I Arikpo, Ugo J Agbor, Peter N Onyenemerem, Eleanor A Ochodo, Helen Smith, Martin Meremikwu
{"title":"影响SARS-CoV-2诊断检测干预措施采用的因素:一项定性综述","authors":"Nuria S Nwachuku, Dachi I Arikpo, Ugo J Agbor, Peter N Onyenemerem, Eleanor A Ochodo, Helen Smith, Martin Meremikwu","doi":"10.4102/jphia.v16i2.619","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Diagnostic tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) may be performed based on symptomatic presentation or for screening of asymptomatic persons. Testing can limit spread by enabling rapid identification of cases leading to containment measures. However, views regarding diagnostic test as a containment intervention vary across different settings.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To synthesise the findings of qualitative studies on the perceptions and factors influencing the uptake of diagnostic test interventions for SARS-CoV-2.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Healthcare facilities, care homes, communities including households.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We searched MEDLINE database and the (WHO) SARS-CoV-2 Research database from 01 January 2020 to 06 September 2022. Qualitative data were synthesised thematically while data for barriers and facilitators were synthesised using the SURE framework. The GRADE-CERQual approach was used to assess the confidence in each review finding, while the ENTREQ checklist was used to report the QES. The quality of included studies was assessed with the CASP tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty two studies were included for QES. Two were conducted in the health facility setting, 2 in care homes, and 18 in the community. Twenty of the studies came from high-income countries, 2 from low- and middle-income countries. In all, 13 analytical and 31 descriptive themes of low to moderate quality evidence emerged; mainly around fear of contracting COVID-19, test procedure and socio-economic implications of a positive test result.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Low to moderate quality evidence of barriers to uptake of diagnostic test were largely due to misconceptions about the interventions.</p><p><strong>Contribution: </strong>Sensitising and engaging communities and stakeholders in the healthcare system, will help mitigate the fear barrier and enhance policy coordination.</p>","PeriodicalId":44723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Health in Africa","volume":"16 2","pages":"619"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12067561/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factors influencing uptake of diagnostic test interventions for SARS-CoV-2: A qualitative review.\",\"authors\":\"Nuria S Nwachuku, Dachi I Arikpo, Ugo J Agbor, Peter N Onyenemerem, Eleanor A Ochodo, Helen Smith, Martin Meremikwu\",\"doi\":\"10.4102/jphia.v16i2.619\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Diagnostic tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) may be performed based on symptomatic presentation or for screening of asymptomatic persons. Testing can limit spread by enabling rapid identification of cases leading to containment measures. However, views regarding diagnostic test as a containment intervention vary across different settings.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To synthesise the findings of qualitative studies on the perceptions and factors influencing the uptake of diagnostic test interventions for SARS-CoV-2.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Healthcare facilities, care homes, communities including households.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We searched MEDLINE database and the (WHO) SARS-CoV-2 Research database from 01 January 2020 to 06 September 2022. Qualitative data were synthesised thematically while data for barriers and facilitators were synthesised using the SURE framework. The GRADE-CERQual approach was used to assess the confidence in each review finding, while the ENTREQ checklist was used to report the QES. The quality of included studies was assessed with the CASP tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty two studies were included for QES. Two were conducted in the health facility setting, 2 in care homes, and 18 in the community. Twenty of the studies came from high-income countries, 2 from low- and middle-income countries. In all, 13 analytical and 31 descriptive themes of low to moderate quality evidence emerged; mainly around fear of contracting COVID-19, test procedure and socio-economic implications of a positive test result.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Low to moderate quality evidence of barriers to uptake of diagnostic test were largely due to misconceptions about the interventions.</p><p><strong>Contribution: </strong>Sensitising and engaging communities and stakeholders in the healthcare system, will help mitigate the fear barrier and enhance policy coordination.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44723,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Public Health in Africa\",\"volume\":\"16 2\",\"pages\":\"619\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12067561/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Public Health in Africa\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4102/jphia.v16i2.619\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Health in Africa","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/jphia.v16i2.619","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒-2 (SARS-CoV-2)的诊断检测可根据症状表现或筛查无症状者进行。检测可以通过快速识别病例从而采取遏制措施来限制传播。然而,关于诊断测试作为遏制干预措施的观点在不同的环境中有所不同。目的:综合对SARS-CoV-2诊断检测干预措施的认知和影响因素的定性研究结果。环境:卫生保健设施、护理院、社区,包括家庭。方法:检索MEDLINE数据库和(WHO) SARS-CoV-2研究数据库,检索时间为2020年1月1日至2022年9月6日。定性数据按主题合成,而障碍和促进因素的数据使用SURE框架合成。GRADE-CERQual方法用于评估每个综述发现的置信度,而ENTREQ检查表用于报告QES。采用CASP工具评估纳入研究的质量。结果:22项研究纳入QES。其中两项在卫生机构环境中进行,两项在护理院进行,18项在社区进行。其中20项研究来自高收入国家,2项来自低收入和中等收入国家。总共出现了13个低到中等质量证据的分析性主题和31个描述性主题;主要围绕对感染COVID-19的恐惧、检测程序和阳性检测结果的社会经济影响。结论:低到中等质量的证据表明,采用诊断测试的障碍主要是由于对干预措施的误解。贡献:提高社区和卫生保健系统利益攸关方的认识和参与,将有助于减轻恐惧障碍并加强政策协调。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Factors influencing uptake of diagnostic test interventions for SARS-CoV-2: A qualitative review.

Background: Diagnostic tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) may be performed based on symptomatic presentation or for screening of asymptomatic persons. Testing can limit spread by enabling rapid identification of cases leading to containment measures. However, views regarding diagnostic test as a containment intervention vary across different settings.

Aim: To synthesise the findings of qualitative studies on the perceptions and factors influencing the uptake of diagnostic test interventions for SARS-CoV-2.

Setting: Healthcare facilities, care homes, communities including households.

Method: We searched MEDLINE database and the (WHO) SARS-CoV-2 Research database from 01 January 2020 to 06 September 2022. Qualitative data were synthesised thematically while data for barriers and facilitators were synthesised using the SURE framework. The GRADE-CERQual approach was used to assess the confidence in each review finding, while the ENTREQ checklist was used to report the QES. The quality of included studies was assessed with the CASP tool.

Results: Twenty two studies were included for QES. Two were conducted in the health facility setting, 2 in care homes, and 18 in the community. Twenty of the studies came from high-income countries, 2 from low- and middle-income countries. In all, 13 analytical and 31 descriptive themes of low to moderate quality evidence emerged; mainly around fear of contracting COVID-19, test procedure and socio-economic implications of a positive test result.

Conclusion: Low to moderate quality evidence of barriers to uptake of diagnostic test were largely due to misconceptions about the interventions.

Contribution: Sensitising and engaging communities and stakeholders in the healthcare system, will help mitigate the fear barrier and enhance policy coordination.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Public Health in Africa
Journal of Public Health in Africa PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Public Health in Africa (JPHiA) is a peer-reviewed, academic journal that focuses on health issues in the African continent. The journal editors seek high quality original articles on public health related issues, reviews, comments and more. The aim of the journal is to move public health discourse from the background to the forefront. The success of Africa’s struggle against disease depends on public health approaches.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信