Behavioural barriers to COVID-19 testing in Australia
Bonner, C.; Batcup, C.; Ayre, J.; Pickles, K.; Dodd, R.; Copp, T.; Cornell, S.; Cvejic, E.; Dakin, T.; Isautier, J.; Nickel, B.; McCaffery, K. J.
Show abstract
BackgroundThe current suppression strategy for COVID-19 in Australia is dependent on people getting tested and self-isolating while they have COVID-19 symptoms. However, there is very little research on the behaviours and behavioural barriers involved in getting tested, both in Australia and worldwide, despite there being some evidence that these barriers do exist. MethodsThe Sydney Health Literacy Lab (SHeLL) has been conducting a national longitudinal survey in Australia since April 2020. A list of testing barriers was included in Wave 3 in June 2020 (n=1369), along with intentions to test and self-isolate if symptomatic. Open responses were also collected. The test barriers identified were categorised using the COM-B framework. ResultsOnly 49% of people strongly agreed they would get tested if they had COVID-19 symptoms, but most people agreed to some extent that they would get tested (96%). The most common barriers selected from the list provided were that testing is painful (11%), not knowing how to get tested (7%), and worry about getting infected at the testing centre (5%). Many participants (10%) indicated other reasons, and open responses included many additional barriers to testing than those provided in the initial list. These covered all components of the COM-B model. ConclusionWe identified a wide range of barriers using both quantitative and qualitative methods, which need to be addressed in order to increase COVID-19 testing behaviour.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- COVID-19 self-testing in Nigeria: Stakeholders’ opinions and perspective on its value for case detection 94%
- COVID-19 vaccination beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours among health and social care workers in the UK: a mixed-methods study 94%
- Acceptability, feasibility and appropriateness of intensified health education, SMS/phone tracing and transport reimbursement for uptake of voluntary medical male circumcision in a sexually transmitted infections clinic in Malawi: a mixed methods study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Perceptions on undertaking regular asymptomatic self-testing for COVID-19 using lateral flow tests: A qualitative study of university students and staff 95%
- Psychological, social and financial impact of COVID-19 on culturally and linguistically diverse communities: a cross-sectional Australian study 94%
- Understanding preferences for self-sampling in a national cervical screening programme: a protocol for a discrete choice experiment 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Factors associated with adherence to self-isolation and lockdown measures in the UK; a cross-sectional survey 92%
- A Scoping Review of the Experience of Implementing Population Testing for SARS-CoV-2 92%
- Implementing psychology-based Empathetic Refutational Interview training to support vaccine confident conversations for health workers 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.