Background There is a high prevalence of COVID-19 in university-age students, who are returning to campuses. There is little evidence regarding the feasibility of universal, asymptomatic testing to help control outbreaks in this population. This study aimed to pilot mass COVID-19 testing on a university research park, to assess the feasibility and acceptability of scaling up testing to all staff and students. Methods This was a cross-sectional feasibility study on a university research park in the East of England. All staff and students (5625) were eligible to participate. All participants were offered four PCR swabs, which they self-administered over two weeks. Outcome measures included uptake, drop-out rate, positivity rates, participant acceptability measures, laboratory processing measures, data collection and management measures. Results 798 (76%) of 1053 who registered provided at least one swab; 687 (86%) provided all four; 792 (99%) of 798 who submitted at least one swab had all negative results and 6 participants had one inconclusive result. There were no positive results. 458 (57%) of 798 participants responded to a post-testing survey, demonstrating a mean acceptability score of 4.51/5, with five being the most positive. Conclusions Repeated self-testing for COVID-19 using PCR is feasible and acceptable to a university population.
Background There is a high prevalence of COVID-19 in university-age students, who are returning to university campuses. There is little evidence regarding the feasibility of universal, asymptomatic testing to control outbreaks in this population. This study aimed to pilot mass COVID-19 testing on a university research park, to assess the feasibility and acceptability of scaling up to all staff and students. Methods This was a cross-sectional feasibility study on a university research park in the East of England. Staff and students (5,625) on the research park were eligible to participate. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing was offered to all participants. Participants were offered 4 swabs, which they self-administered over a two-week period. Outcome measures included: uptake; drop-out rate; positivity rates; participant acceptability measures; laboratory processing measures. Results 798/1053 (76%) of those who registered provided at least one swab and of these, 687 (86%) provided all four. 681/687 (99%) had all negative results. 6 participants had one inconclusive result. There were no positive results. 458/798 (57%) participants responded to a post-testing questionnaire. 446/458 (97.5%) of those who responded agreed that they would be interested in repeat testing in the future. Conclusions Repeated self-testing is feasible and acceptable to a university population.
Background The main barriers to ‘vulnerable migrants’ receiving good quality primary care are language and administration barriers. Little is known about the experiences of healthcare discrimination faced by migrants from different cultural groups. The aim was to explore vulnerable migrants’ perspectives on primary healthcare in a UK city. Methods Three focus groups and two semi-structured interviews were aided by interpreters. These were analysed against a pre-developed framework based on national standards of care for vulnerable migrants. Recruitment was facilitated via a community organisation. Results In total, 13 participants took part, six women and seven men. There were five Arabic speakers, four Farsi speakers and four English speakers. Themes included access to primary care, mental health, use of interpreters, post-migration stressors and cultural competency. Conclusion Vulnerable migrants perceived high levels of discrimination and reported the value of a respectful attitude from health professionals. Appointment booking systems and re-ordering medication are key areas where language barriers cause the most disruption to patient care. Medication-only treatment plans have limitations for mental distress for this population. Community-based therapies which manage post-migration stressors are likely to enhance recovery.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.