Do some prefer to pay? Identifying bias against free COVID-19 tests.

Objectives: In the United States, a federal emergency program has made SARS-CoV-2 self-test kits available at no cost. It is unclear how widely free tests are preferred. We conducted a survey to estimate the proportion of respondents who do not prefer a free test. We hypothesized that free tests would not be preferred universally, and that a preference for paying would be more common among those with conservative politics than with liberal politics, regardless of income. Design: Observational study design. Methods: A national sample of US adults completed an online survey. To reduce potential enrollment bias, the survey's focus was not specified beforehand. To prioritize a high-risk group, participation was limited to those who were unvaccinated or were incompletely vaccinated in the primary series against COVID-19. Participants reported their testing preferences and socio-demographic characteristics, including political affiliation. The main outcome assessed if a participant preferred to pay for a self-test or receive a free one (subsidized by the US government). Results: Among 1215 participants, (73%, n = 886) preferred free self-testing, while 27% (n = 329) preferred to pay for the same testing. After adjusting for income, the odds of preferring to pay for self-testing were 66% higher in "strong" Republicans compared to "strong" Democrats (odds ratio = 1.66, 95% confidence interval = 1.07-2.62). Conclusions: More than a quarter of individuals preferred paying for these tests. This preference was more likely among those with right-wing politics. Policy implications are discussed, along with future research directions.

Salient beliefs related to secondary distribution of COVID-19 self-test kits within social networks.

Background: Widespread access to testing is critical to public health efforts to control the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondary distribution of COVID-19 self-test kits, where an individual distributes test kits to others in their social networks, is a potential strategy to improve access to testing. In this qualitative study, we identified salient beliefs about distributing and accepting COVID-19 self-test kits within one's social network, as well as ordering COVID-19 self-test kits from the government. Methods: We recruited 61 participants from a randomized controlled trial (NCT04797858) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to elicit beliefs about (1) distributing COVID-19 self-test kits within one's social network, (2) receiving test kits from social contacts, and (3) ordering self-test kits from the government. Using validated, open-ended question stems, we identified the most common set of beliefs underlying attitudes, perceived norms (or social referents), and perceived behavioral control (or self-efficacy) toward each of these behaviors. Results: Twenty-seven out of 30 (90%) of participants who received self-test kits reported distributing the kits to social contacts. These participants described altruistic beliefs about giving others access to testing, and felt approval from family members, friends, and others in their social networks. When receiving test kits from social network contacts, participants described advantages of test kit convenience, but some voiced concern about test kit tampering and confusing instructions. Participants also described perceived logistic barriers to distributing and receiving self-test kits, such as delivering or transporting test kits, or finding time to meet. Participants who ordered test kits from the government also described increased convenience of test access, but described different logistic barriers such as delays in test kit delivery, or not receiving test kits at all. Conclusion: In comparison with government-ordered test kits, the secondary distribution of COVID-19 self-test kits raised unique concerns about test kit quality and instructions, as well as distinctive logistic barriers related to distributing self-test kits to network contacts, which were not raised for test kits ordered from the government. This study demonstrates that beliefs may vary depending on the type of testing behavior, and behavioral interventions may benefit from developing messages tailored to specific testing strategies.

Implementation fidelity, student outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of train-the-trainer strategies for Masters-level therapists in urban schools: results from a cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of train-the-trainer implementation strategies in supporting mental health evidence-based practices in schools, and about the optimal level of support needed for TT strategies. METHODS: The current study is part of a larger type 2 hybrid cluster randomized controlled trial. It compares two train-the-trainer strategies, Train-the-Trainer (TT) and Train-the-Trainer plus ongoing consultation for trainers (TT +) on the delivery of a group cognitive behavioral treatment protocol for anxiety disorders. Participants were 33 therapists, 29 supervisors, and 125 students who were at risk for anxiety disorders from 22 urban schools. Implementation outcomes were implementation fidelity and treatment dosage. Student outcomes were child- and parent-reported symptoms of anxiety, child-reported symptoms of depression, and teacher-reported academic engagement. We estimated the cost of implementing the intervention in each condition and examined the probability that a support strategy for supervisors (TT vs TT +) is a good value for varying values of willingness to pay. RESULTS: Therapists in the TT and TT + conditions obtained similarly high implementation fidelity and students in the conditions received similar treatment dosages. A mixed effects modeling approach for student outcomes revealed time effects for symptoms of anxiety and depression reported by students, and emotional disaffection reported by teachers. There were no condition or condition × times effects. For both conditions, the time effects indicated an improvement from pre-treatment to post-treatment in symptoms of anxiety and depression and academic emotional engagement. The average cost of therapist, supervisor, and consultant time required to implement the intervention in each condition was $1002 for TT and $1431 for TT + (p = 0.01). There was a greater than 80% chance that TT was a good value compared to TT + for all values of willingness to pay per one-point improvement in anxiety scores. CONCLUSIONS: A TT implementation approach consisting of a thorough initial training workshop for therapists and supervisors as well as ongoing supervision for therapists resulted in adequate levels of fidelity and student outcomes but at a lower cost, compared to the TT + condition that also included ongoing external expert consultation for supervisors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02651402.