Rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 by lateral flow assay: A field evaluation of self- and professional testing at UK community testing sites.

BACKGROUND: The advent of lateral flow devices (LFDs) for SARS-CoV-2 detection enabled widespread use of rapid self-tests during the pandemic. While self-testing using LFDs is now common, whether self-testing provides comparable performance to professional testing was a key question that remained important for pandemic planning. METHODS: Three prospective multi-centre studies were conducted to compare the performance of self- and professional testing using LFDs. Participants tested themselves or were tested by trained (professional) testers at community testing sites in the UK. Corresponding qRT-PCR test results served as reference standard. The performance of Innova, Orient Gene and SureScreen LFDs by users (self) and professional testers was assessed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and kit failure (void) rates. Impact of age, sex and symptom status was analysed using logistic regression modelling. RESULTS: 16,617 participants provided paired tests, of which 15,418 were included in the analysis. Self-testing with Innova, Orient Gene or SureScreen LFDs achieved sensitivities of 50 %, 53 % or 72 %, respectively, compared to qRT-PCR. Self and professional LFD testing showed no statistically different sensitivity with respect to corresponding qRT-PCR testing. Specificity was consistently equal to or higher than 99 %. Sex and age had no or only marginal impact on LFD performance while sensitivity was significantly higher for symptomatic individuals. Sensitivity of LFDs increased strongly to up to 90 % with higher levels of viral RNA measured by qRT-PCR. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support SARS-CoV-2 self-testing with LFDs, especially for the detection of individuals whose qRT-PCR tests showed high viral concentrations.

Digital health, cardiometabolic disease and ethnicity: an analysis of United Kingdom government policies from 2010 to 2022.

Recent health policies in the United Kingdom (UK) and internationally have focussed on digitisation of healthcare. We examined UK policies for evidence of government action addressing health inequalities and digital health, using cardiometabolic disease as an exemplar. Using a systematic search methodology, we identified 87 relevant policy documents published between 2010 and 2022. We found increasing emphasis on digital health, including for prevention, diagnosis and management of cardiometabolic disease. Several policies also focused on tackling health inequalities and improving digital access. The COVID-19 pandemic amplified inequalities. No policies addressed ethnic inequalities in digital health for cardiometabolic disease, despite high prevalence in minority ethnic communities. Our findings suggest that creating opportunities for digital inclusion and reduce longer-term health inequalities, will require future policies to focus on: the heterogeneity of ethnic groups; cross-sectoral disadvantages which contribute to disease burden and digital accessibility; and disease-specific interventions which lend themselves to culturally tailored solutions.

The Use of Digital Health Interventions for Cardiometabolic Diseases Among South Asian and Black Minority Ethnic Groups: Realist Review.

BACKGROUND: Digital health interventions (DHIs) for the prevention and management of cardiometabolic diseases have become increasingly common. However, there is limited evidence for the suitability of these approaches in minority ethnic populations, who are at an increased risk of these diseases. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the use of DHIs for cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes among minority ethnic populations in countries with a majority of White, English-speaking populations, focusing on people who identified as South Asian, Black, or African American. METHODS: A realist methodology framework was followed. A literature search was conducted to develop context-mechanism-outcome configurations, including the contexts in which DHIs work for the target minority ethnic groups, mechanisms that these contexts trigger, and resulting health outcomes. After systematic searches, a qualitative analysis of the included studies was conducted using deductive and inductive coding. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies on the uptake of DHIs for cardiovascular disease or diabetes were identified, of which 13 (87%) focused on people with an African-American background. The review found evidence supporting the use of DHIs in minority ethnic populations when specific factors are considered in implementation and design, including patients' beliefs, health needs, education and literacy levels, material circumstances, culture, social networks, and wider community and the supporting health care systems. CONCLUSIONS: Our context-mechanism-outcome configurations provide a useful guide for the future development of DHIs targeted at South Asian and Black minority ethnic populations, with specific recommendations for improving cultural competency and promoting accessibility and inclusivity of design.

Frameworks for Implementation, Uptake, and Use of Cardiometabolic Disease-Related Digital Health Interventions in Ethnic Minority Populations: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Digital health interventions have become increasingly common across health care, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health inequalities, particularly with respect to ethnicity, may not be considered in frameworks that address the implementation of digital health interventions. We considered frameworks to include any models, theories, or taxonomies that describe or predict implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess how health inequalities are addressed in frameworks relevant to the implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions; health and ethnic inequalities; and interventions for cardiometabolic disease. METHODS: SCOPUS, PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and gray literature were searched to identify papers on frameworks relevant to the implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions; ethnically or culturally diverse populations and health inequalities; and interventions for cardiometabolic disease. We assessed the extent to which frameworks address health inequalities, specifically ethnic inequalities; explored how they were addressed; and developed recommendations for good practice. RESULTS: Of 58 relevant papers, 22 (38%) included frameworks that referred to health inequalities. Inequalities were conceptualized as society-level, system-level, intervention-level, and individual. Only 5 frameworks considered all levels. Three frameworks considered how digital health interventions might interact with or exacerbate existing health inequalities, and 3 considered the process of health technology implementation, uptake, and use and suggested opportunities to improve equity in digital health. When ethnicity was considered, it was often within the broader concepts of social determinants of health. Only 3 frameworks explicitly addressed ethnicity: one focused on culturally tailoring digital health interventions, and 2 were applied to management of cardiometabolic disease. CONCLUSIONS: Existing frameworks evaluate implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions, but to consider factors related to ethnicity, it is necessary to look across frameworks. We have developed a visual guide of the key constructs across the 4 potential levels of action for digital health inequalities, which can be used to support future research and inform digital health policies.