Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Combined Symptom Screening and At-Home Tests for COVID-19.
Alemi, Farrokh; Vang, Jee; Bagais, Wejdan Hassan; Guralnik, Elina; Wojtusiak, Janusz; Moeller, F Gerard; Schilling, Josh; Peterson, Rachele; Roess, Amira; Jain, Praduman.
Afiliación
  • Alemi F; Vibrent Health, Inc, Fairfax, Virginia (Messrs Schilling and Jain and Ms Peterson); George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia (Drs Alemi, Vang, Wojtusiak, and Roess and Mss Bagais and Guralnik); and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia (Dr Moeller).
Qual Manag Health Care ; 32(Suppl 1): S11-S20, 2023.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36579704
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: At-home rapid antigen tests provide a convenient and expedited resource to learn about severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection status. However, low sensitivity of at-home antigen tests presents a challenge. This study examines the accuracy of at-home tests, when combined with computer-facilitated symptom screening. METHODS: The study used primary data sources with data collected during 2 phases at different periods (phase 1 and phase 2): one during the period in which the alpha variant of SARS-CoV-2 was predominant in the United States and another during the surge of the delta variant. Four hundred sixty-one study participants were included in the analyses from phase 1 and 374 subjects from phase 2. Phase 1 data were used to develop a computerized symptom screening tool, using ordinary logistic regression with interaction terms, which predicted coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results. Phase 2 data were used to validate the accuracy of predicting COVID-19 diagnosis with (1) computerized symptom screening; (2) at-home rapid antigen testing; (3) the combination of both screening methods; and (4) the combination of symptom screening and vaccination status. The McFadden pseudo-R2 was used as a measure of percentage of variation in RT-PCR test results explained by the various screening methods. RESULTS: The McFadden pseudo-R2 for the first at-home test, the second at-home test, and computerized symptom screening was 0.274, 0.140, and 0.158, respectively. Scores between 0.2 and 0.4 indicated moderate levels of accuracy. The first at-home test had low sensitivity (0.587) and high specificity (0.989). Adding a second at-home test did not improve the sensitivity of the first test. Computerized symptom screening improved the accuracy of the first at-home test (added 0.131 points to sensitivity and 6.9% to pseudo-R2 of the first at-home test). Computerized symptom screening and vaccination status was the most accurate method to screen patients for COVID-19 or an active infection with SARS-CoV-2 in the community (pseudo-R2 = 0.476). CONCLUSION: Computerized symptom screening could either improve, or in some situations, replace at-home antigen tests for those individuals experiencing COVID-19 symptoms.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: COVID-19 Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Screening_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Qual Manag Health Care Asunto de la revista: PESQUISA EM SERVICOS DE SAUDE / SERVICOS DE SAUDE Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: COVID-19 Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Screening_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Qual Manag Health Care Asunto de la revista: PESQUISA EM SERVICOS DE SAUDE / SERVICOS DE SAUDE Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos