Testing for COVID-19 regulates behavior in the general population: A qualitative study of experiences of awaiting test result for COVID-19

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to explore experiences of awaiting a test result for COVID-19 among individuals from the general population. Methods: Fifteen participants were recruited from COVID-19 testing tents in the Capital Region of Denmark in March and April 2020. A phenomenological–hermeneutic approach inspired by Ricoeur’s theory of interpretation was used. Results: The analysis revealed five themes. (1) The participants’ experiences of awaiting a COVID-19 test result illuminated concerns related to infecting others rather than their own health. Experiences of guilt for not taking all possible precautions to avoid the spread of COVID-19 were described and thoughts of potentially having exposed others bothered the participants. (2) The test result would guide their precautions and therefore regulate behaviour at home and in society. (3) Even though the participants did not take all possible precautions they made some changes in their everyday lives. (4) Leaving the individual with the responsibility for taking precautions based on their subjective experiences created feelings of insecurity and uncertainty. (5) Being met by health professionals was an experience that meant for the particpants that behaviour towards limiting the infection became very clear. The seriousness experienced around the test situation facilitated this attitude and behaviour in the participants. Conclusion: This study illuminated how testing for COVID-19 regulates behavior in the general population. The testing was both important for the individual’s cautious behavior towards other people, work and in getting around in society but also a way to regulate behavior from a societal perspective to quicken suppression and avoid transmission of COVID-19.

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior Related to COVID-19 Testing: A Rapid Scoping Review

“…Eight studies [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ] targeted participants of pilot testing programs (e.g., a telehealth system for testing [ 21 ] or the introduction of mass asymptomatic testing on a university campus [ 23 ]). Other target populations included patients or users of a specific health service or clinic [ 21 , 28 , 29 ] or health-related online app [ 30 , 31 ]; age-based populations [ 32 ]; health workers [ 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ]; students and/or staff based at universities [ 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 38 ]; employment groups, such as police officers or industry workers [ 39 , 40 ]; and groups deemed especially vulnerable to COVID-19, such as homeless populations [ 41 ], refugee populations [ 42 ], or pregnant women attending clinical settings [ 34 , 35 , 43 ].…”

“…Lateral flow testing is less widely represented in the evidence base and is more likely to feature in articles and preprints based on more recently collected data [ 22 , 38 ]. The characteristics of all studies included in the review are summarized in Table 1 [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 …”

“…Studies that focused on testing effects and post-testing behaviors included those concerned with the impact of testing—or the perceived availability of testing—on people’s wellbeing and anxiety levels [ 23 , 24 , 27 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 59 ]; they also included those examining adherence to guidelines following test results, whether in terms of compliance with self-isolation guidelines in the case of a positive result or of maintaining protective behaviors in the case of a negative result [ 22 , 23 , 28 , 31 , 33 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 45 , 51 , 52 , 57 , 60 , 61 ]. All of the studies under this theme were based on self-reporting; no studies in the review undertook observational research on the impact of testing on compliance with guidelines.…”

“…We identified three main areas of perceived benefit from testing. First, in many cases, research participants mentioned wider, community-level benefits from undergoing testing, including helping to reduce transmission [ 22 , 28 , 38 , 40 , 52 ] and protecting vulnerable groups [ 22 , 28 ]. An interesting finding from a US-based study using a hypothetical field experiment with 1000 members of the public in May 2020 was that the people most willing to take a test were those most likely to spread COVID-19 (due to high levels of social contact in their daily lives).…”

“…Fourteen studies examined the links between testing and self-isolation and/or changes to protective behaviors following a positive or negative test result [ 22 , 23 , 27 , 28 , 31 , 33 , 38 , 39 , 45 , 51 , 52 , 57 , 60 , 61 ].…”