背景:SARS-CoV-2快速抗原检测(RAT)可能是诊断大量急性无症状感染和减轻聚合酶链反应检测局限性的有用补充检测方法。然而,对接受SARS-CoV-2RAT的犹豫可能会损害其实施。
目的:我们的目的是了解中国大陆未感染SARS-CoV-2的成年人对接受RAT犹豫的患病率和相关性。
方法:在2022年4月29日至2022年5月10日期间,在中国大陆未感染SARS-CoV-2的成年人中进行了一项全国性横断面调查。参与者完成了一份涵盖以下COVID-19相关因素的在线问卷:社会人口统计学特征,COVID-19限制的经验和对COVID-19的了解,以及对COVID-19及其筛查的态度。这项研究是对调查数据的二次分析。我们通过犹豫接受SARS-CoV-2RAT来比较参与者的特征。此后,使用稀疏组minimax凹惩罚的逻辑回归来确定是否进行RAT犹豫的相关性。
结果:我们招募了8856名不同人口的人,社会经济,和中国的地理特征。最终,5388名参与者(有效反应率为60.84%;52.32%[2819/5388]女性;中位年龄32岁)被纳入分析。在5388名参与者中,687(12.75%)表示不愿接受RAT,4701(87.25%)愿意接受RAT。值得注意的是,来自中部地区的人群(调整后比值比[aOR]1.815,95%CI1.441-2.278)和接受来自传统媒体的COVID-19信息的人群(aOR1.544,95%CI1.279-1.863)报告对接受RAT的犹豫不决的可能性显著增加(均P<.001).然而,女性(aOR0.720,95%CI0.599-0.864),年龄较大(aOR0.982,95%CI0.969-0.995),有研究生学历(AOR0.612,95%CI0.435-0.858),家庭中有儿童(<6岁)和老年人(>60岁)(aOR0.685,95%CI0.510-0.911),对COVID-19有更好的了解(aOR0.942,95%CI0.916-0.970),并且患有精神健康障碍(aOR0.795,95%CI0.646-0.975)的患者不太可能报告对接受RAT的犹豫。
结论:在尚未感染SARS-CoV-2的个体中,接受SARS-CoV-2RAT的犹豫率较低。应努力提高男性对RAT的认识和接受度,年轻的成年人,受教育程度或工资较低的人,没有孩子和老人的家庭,以及通过传统媒体获取COVID-19信息的个人。在一个重新开放的世界里,我们的研究可以为一般情况下的大规模筛查策略的发展提供信息,特别是RAT的扩大,这仍然是应急准备中不可或缺的选择。
SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing (RAT) could be a useful supplementary test to diagnose larger numbers of acute asymptomatic infections and alleviate the limitations of polymerase chain reaction testing. However,
hesitancy to undergo SARS-CoV-2 RAT may compromise its implementation.
We aimed to understand the prevalence and correlates of hesitancy to undergo RAT among adults not infected with SARS-CoV-2 in mainland
China.
A nationwide cross-sectional survey on hesitancy to undergo SARS-CoV-2 RAT was conducted among adults not infected with SARS-CoV-2 in mainland
China between April 29, 2022, and May 10, 2022. Participants completed an online questionnaire that covered the following COVID-19-related factors: sociodemographic characteristics, experiences of COVID-19 restrictions and knowledge of COVID-19, and attitude toward COVID-19 and its screening. This study was a secondary analysis of data from the survey. We compared the characteristics of participants by
hesitancy to undergo SARS-CoV-2 RAT. Thereafter, logistic regression with a sparse group minimax concave penalty was used to identify correlates of hesitancy to undergo RAT.
We recruited 8856 individuals with diverse demographic, socioeconomic, and geographic characteristics in
China. Eventually, 5388 participants (valid response rate of 60.84%; 52.32% [2819/5388] women; median age 32 years) were included in the analysis. Among the 5388 participants, 687 (12.75%) expressed hesitancy to undergo RAT and 4701 (87.25%) were willing to undergo RAT. Notably, those who were from the central region (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.815, 95% CI 1.441-2.278) and those who received COVID-19 information from traditional media (aOR 1.544, 95% CI 1.279-1.863) were significantly more likely to report hesitancy to undergo RAT (both P<.001). However, those who were women (aOR 0.720, 95% CI 0.599-0.864), were older (aOR 0.982, 95% CI 0.969-0.995), had postgraduate education (aOR 0.612, 95% CI 0.435-0.858), had children (<6 years old) and elders (>60 years old) in the family (aOR 0.685, 95% CI 0.510-0.911), had better knowledge about COVID-19 (aOR 0.942, 95% CI 0.916-0.970), and had mental health disorders (aOR 0.795, 95% CI 0.646-0.975) were less likely to report hesitancy to undergo RAT.
Hesitancy to undergo SARS-CoV-2 RAT was low among individuals who were not yet infected with SARS-CoV-2. Efforts should be made to improve the awareness and acceptance of RAT among men, younger adults, individuals with a lower education or salary, families without children and elders, and individuals who access COVID-19 information via traditional media. In a reopening world, our study could inform the development of contextualized mass screening strategies in general and the scale-up of RAT in particular, which remains an indispensable option in emergency preparedness.