Usability and Acceptability of Home-based Self-testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Antibodies for Population Surveillance.

BACKGROUND: This study assesses acceptability and usability of home-based self-testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies using lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA). METHODS: We carried out public involvement and pilot testing in 315 volunteers to improve usability. Feedback was obtained through online discussions, questionnaires, observations, and interviews of people who tried the test at home. This informed the design of a nationally representative survey of adults in England using two LFIAs (LFIA1 and LFIA2) which were sent to 10 600 and 3800 participants, respectively, who provided further feedback. RESULTS: Public involvement and pilot testing showed high levels of acceptability, but limitations with the usability of kits. Most people reported completing the test; however, they identified difficulties with practical aspects of the kit, particularly the lancet and pipette, a need for clearer instructions and more guidance on interpretation of results. In the national study, 99.3% (8693/8754) of LFIA1 and 98.4% (2911/2957) of LFIA2 respondents attempted the test and 97.5% and 97.8% of respondents completed it, respectively. Most found the instructions easy to understand, but some reported difficulties using the pipette (LFIA1: 17.7%) and applying the blood drop to the cassette (LFIA2: 31.3%). Most respondents obtained a valid result (LFIA1: 91.5%; LFIA2: 94.4%). Overall there was substantial concordance between participant and clinician interpreted results (kappa: LFIA1 0.72; LFIA2 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Impactful public involvement is feasible in a rapid response setting. Home self-testing with LFIAs can be used with a high degree of acceptability and usability by adults, making them a good option for use in seroprevalence surveys.

Co-production as an approach to developing stakeholder partnerships to reduce mental health inequalities: an evaluation of a pilot service.

Aim This study aimed to evaluate a pilot cross-sector initiative - bringing together public health, a community group, primary mental health teams and patients - in using co-production approaches to deliver a mental health service to meet the needs of the black and minority ethnic communities. BACKGROUND: Black and minority ethnic communities continue to face inequalities in mental health service access and provision. They are under-represented in low-level interventions as they are less likely to be referred, and more likely to disengage from mainstream mental health services. Effective models that lead to improved access and better outcomes are yet to be established. It has long been recognised that to be effective, services need to be more culturally competent, which may be achieved through a co-production approach. METHODS: This study aimed to evaluate the role of co-production in the development of a novel community mental health service for black and minority ethnic service users. Qualitative research methods, including semi-structured interviews and focus groups, were used to collect data to examine the use of co-production methods in designing and delivering an improved mental health service. Findings Twenty-five patients enrolled into the study; of these, 10 were signposted for more intensive psychological support. A 75% retention rate was recorded (higher than is generally the case for black and minority ethnic service users). Early indications are that the project has helped overcome barriers to accessing mental health services. Although small scale, this study highlights an alternative model that, if explored and developed further, could lead to delivery of patient-centred services to improve access and patient experience within mental health services, particularly for black and minority ethnic communities.