Examining the role of COVID-19 testing availability on intention to isolate: A Randomized hypothetical scenario

Justin C Zhang, Katherine L Christensen, Richard K Leuchter, Sitaram Vangala, Maria Han, Daniel M Croymans, Justin C Zhang, Katherine L Christensen, Richard K Leuchter, Sitaram Vangala, Maria Han, Daniel M Croymans

Abstract

Background: Little information exists on how COVID-19 testing influences intentions to engage in risky behavior. Understanding the behavioral effects of diagnostic testing may highlight the role of adequate testing on controlling viral transmission. In order to evaluate these effects, simulated scenarios were conducted evaluating participant intentions to self-isolate based on COVID-19 diagnostic testing availability and results.

Methods: Participants from the United States were recruited through an online survey platform (Amazon Mechanical Turk) and randomized to one of three hypothetical scenarios. Each scenario asked participants to imagine having symptoms consistent with COVID-19 along with a clinical diagnosis from their physician. However, scenarios differed in either testing availability (testing available v. unavailable) or testing result (positive v. negative test). The primary outcome was intention to engage in high-risk COVID-19 behaviors, measured using an 11-item mean score (range 1-7) that was pre-registered prior to data collection. Multi-variable linear regression was used to compare the mean composite scores between conditions. The randomized survey was conducted between July 23rd to July 29th, 2020.

Results: A total of 1400 participants were recruited through a national, online, opt-in survey. Out of 1194 respondents (41.6% male, 58.4% female) with a median age of 38.5 years, participants who had no testing available in their clinical scenario showed significantly greater intentions to engage in behavior facilitating COVID-19 transmission compared to those who received a positive confirmatory test result scenario (mean absolute difference (SE): 0.14 (0.06), P = 0.016), equating to an 11.1% increase in mean score risky behavior intentions. Intention to engage in behaviors that can spread COVID-19 were also positively associated with male gender, poor health status, and Republican party affiliation.

Conclusion: Testing availability appears to play an independent role in influencing behaviors facilitating COVID-19 transmission. Such findings shed light on the possible negative externalities of testing unavailability.

Trial registration: Effect of Availability of COVID-19 Testing on Choice to Isolate and Socially Distance, NCT04459520, https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT04459520.

Conflict of interest statement

No competing interests are noted by any of the listed authors.

Figures

Fig 1. Adjusted mean scores for total…
Fig 1. Adjusted mean scores for total score, personal decisions subscore, and social expectations subscore across the hypothetical scenarios.

References

    1. COVID-19 Map—Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center [Internet]. [cited 2021 Sep 4]. .
    1. Wright L, Steptoe A, Fancourt D. Predictors of self-reported adherence to COVID-19 guidelines. A longitudinal observational study of 51,600 UK adults. Lancet Reg Heal—Eur [Internet]. 2021. May 1 [cited 2021 Sep 4];4:100061. Available from: . doi: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100061
    1. Lieberman-Cribbin W, Tuminello S, Flores RM, Taioli E. Disparities in COVID-19 Testing and Positivity in New York City. Am J Prev Med [Internet]. 2020. Sep 1 [cited 2021 Sep 4];59(3):326–32. Available from: . doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.06.005
    1. Moreland A. Timing of State and Territorial COVID-19 Stay-at-Home Orders and Changes in Population Movement—United States, March 1–May 31, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep [Internet]. 2020. Sep 4 [cited 2021 Sep 4];69(35):1198–203. Available from: . doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6935a2
    1. Li S, Feng B, Liao W, Pan W. Internet Use, Risk Awareness, and Demographic Characteristics Associated With Engagement in Preventive Behaviors and Testing: Cross-Sectional Survey on COVID-19 in the United States. J Med Internet Res [Internet]. 2020. Jun 1 [cited 2021 Sep 4];22(6). Available from: .
    1. Harper CA, Satchell LP, Fido D, Latzman RD. Functional Fear Predicts Public Health Compliance in the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int J Ment Health Addict [Internet]. 2020. [cited 2021 Sep 4];1. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC7185265/. doi: 10.1007/s11469-020-00281-5
    1. Grossman G, Kim S, Rexer JM, Thirumurthy H. Political partisanship influences behavioral responses to governors’ recommendations for COVID-19 prevention in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci [Internet]. 2020. Sep 29 [cited 2021 Sep 4];117(39):24144–53. Available from: . doi: 10.1073/pnas.2007835117
    1. Litman L, Robinson J, Abberbock T. : A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behav Res Methods [Internet]. 2017. Apr 1 [cited 2021 Sep 4];49(2):433–42. Available from: . doi: 10.3758/s13428-016-0727-z
    1. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991. Dec 1;50(2):179–211.
    1. COVID-19 Quarantine and Isolation | CDC [Internet]. [cited 2021 Sep 4]. .
    1. Activities, Gatherings & Holidays | CDC [Internet]. [cited 2021 Sep 4]. .
    1. Pasterny, L. Do Ask, Do Tell: Capturing Data on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Globally. [ebook] Stonewall, pp.18-21. <> [Accessed 15 October 2020].
    1. . 2020. HCAHPS Quality Assurance Guidelines V15.0 Survey Instruments. [online]. [cited 2021 Sep 4]. .
    1. Party Affiliation | Gallup Historical Trends [Internet]. [cited 2021 Sep 4]. .
    1. Seattle Flu Study [Internet]. [cited 2021 Sep 4]. .
    1. Bults M, Beaujean DJ, de Zwart O, Kok G, van Empelen P, van Steenbergen JE, et al.. Perceived risk, anxiety, and behavioural responses of the general public during the early phase of the Influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in the Netherlands: results of three consecutive online surveys. BMC Public Heal 2011 111 [Internet]. 2011. Jan 3 [cited 2021 Sep 4];11(1):1–13. Available from:
    1. Measure and Score Financial Well-being | Consumer Financial Protection Bureau [Internet]. [cited 2021 Sep 4]. .
    1. Zhang X, Wang F, Zhu C, Wang Z. Willingness to Self-Isolate When Facing a Pandemic Risk: Model, Empirical Test, and Policy Recommendations. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Internet]. 2019. Jan 1 [cited 2021 Sep 4];17(1). Available from: .
    1. Schmid P, Rauber D, Betsch C, Lidolt G, Denker M-L. Barriers of Influenza Vaccination Intention and Behavior—A Systematic Review of Influenza Vaccine Hesitancy, 2005–2016. PLoS One [Internet]. 2017. Jan 1 [cited 2021 Sep 4];12(1):e0170550. Available from: .
    1. Armstrong RA. When to use the Bonferroni correction. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt [Internet]. 2014. Sep 1 [cited 2021 Sep 4];34(5):502–8. Available from: .
    1. Daily COVID-19 tests per thousand people [Internet]. [cited 2021 Sep 4]. .
    1. Daily Testing Trends in Usa—Johns Hopkins [Internet]. [cited 2021 Sep 4]. .
    1. Brown CC, Young SG, Pro GC. COVID-19 vaccination rates vary by community vulnerability: A county-level analysis. Vaccine. 2021. Jul 13;39(31):4245–9. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.06.038
    1. Bernal JL, Andrews N, Gower C, Gallagher E, Simmons R, Thelwall S, et al.. Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant. [Internet]. 2021. Jul 21 [cited 2021 Sep 2];385(7):585–94. Available from: .
    1. Rubin D, Huang J, Fisher BT, Gasparrini A, Tam V, Song L, et al.. Association of Social Distancing, Population Density, and Temperature With the Instantaneous Reproduction Number of SARS-CoV-2 in Counties Across the United States. JAMA Netw Open [Internet]. 2020. Jul 1 [cited 2021 Sep 4];3(7):e2016099–e2016099. Available from: . doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.16099
    1. Ngonghala CN, Iboi E, Eikenberry S, Scotch M, MacIntyre CR, Bonds MH, et al.. Mathematical assessment of the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on curtailing the 2019 novel Coronavirus. Math Biosci. 2020. Jul 1;325:108364. doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2020.108364
    1. Arevalo-Rodriguez I, Buitrago-Garcia D, Simancas-Racines D, et al.. False-negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for COVID-19: A systematic review. PLoS One [Internet]. 2020. Dec 1 [cited 2021 Sep 4];15(12). Available from: . doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242958
    1. Berger A, Nsoga MTN, Perez-Rodriguez FJ, Aad YA, Sattonnet-Roche P, Gayet-Ageron A, et al.. Diagnostic accuracy of two commercial SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid tests at the point of care in community-based testing centers. PLoS One [Internet]. 2021. Mar 1 [cited 2021 Sep 4];16(3):e0248921. Available from: .
    1. Woloshin S, Patel N, Kesselheim AS. False Negative Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Infection—Challenges and Implications. [Internet]. 2020. Jun 5 [cited 2021 Sep 4];383(6):e38. Available from:
    1. Robertson LS. Did people’s behavior after receiving negative COVID-19 tests contribute to the spread? J Public Health (Bangkok) [Internet]. 2021. Jun 7 [cited 2021 Sep 4];43(2):270–3. Available from: .
    1. Feinstein BA, Johnson BA, Parsons JT, Mustanski B. Reactions to Testing HIV Negative: Measurement and Associations with Sexual Risk Behavior among Young MSM Who Recently Tested HIV Negative. AIDS Behav [Internet]. 2017. May 1 [cited 2021 Sep 2];21(5):1467. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC5528143/. doi: 10.1007/s10461-016-1525-4
    1. Long EF, Chen MK, Rohla R. Political storms: Emergent partisan skepticism of hurricane risks. Sci Adv [Internet]. 2020. Sep 1 [cited 2021 Sep 4];6(37):7906–17. Available from: . doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abb7906
    1. Stewart C. III How We Voted in 2020: A First Look at the Survey of the Performance of American Elections [Internet]. Cambridge; 2020. Dec [cited 2021 Aug 27]. .
    1. Tooher R, Collins JE, Street JM, Braunack-Mayer A, Marshall H. Community knowledge, behaviours and attitudes about the 2009 H1N1 Influenza pandemic: a systematic review. Influenza Other Respi Viruses [Internet]. 2013. Nov [cited 2021 Sep 4];7(6):1316–27. Available from: .
    1. de Bruin WB, Bennett D. Relationships Between Initial COVID-19 Risk Perceptions and Protective Health Behaviors: A National Survey. Am J Prev Med [Internet]. 2020. Aug 1 [cited 2021 Sep 4];59(2):157–67. Available from: . doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.05.001
    1. Teasdale E, Yardley L, Schlotz W, Michie S. The importance of coping appraisal in behavioural responses to pandemic flu. Br J Health Psychol [Internet]. 2012. Feb [cited 2021 Sep 4];17(1):44–59. Available from: . doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8287.2011.02017.x
    1. Mortensen K, Hughes TL. Comparing Amazon’s Mechanical Turk Platform to Conventional Data Collection Methods in the Health and Medical Research Literature. J Gen Intern Med [Internet]. 2018. Apr 1 [cited 2021 Sep 4];33(4):533–8. Available from: . doi: 10.1007/s11606-017-4246-0
    1. Fifer S, Rose J, Greaves S. Hypothetical bias in Stated Choice Experiments: Is it a problem? And if so, how do we deal with it? Transp Res Part A Policy Pract. 2014. Mar 1;61:164–77.
    1. Webb TL, Sheeran P. Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychol Bull [Internet]. 2006. Mar [cited 2021 Sep 4];132(2):249–68. Available from: . doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249
    1. Callow MA, Callow DD, Smith C. Older Adults’ Intention to Socially Isolate Once COVID-19 Stay-at-Home Orders Are Replaced With “Safer-at-Home” Public Health Advisories: A Survey of Respondents in Maryland. J Appl Gerontol [Internet]. 2020. Nov 1 [cited 2021 Sep 4];39(11):1175–83. Available from: . doi: 10.1177/0733464820944704
    1. Petherick A, Goldszmidt R, Andrade EB, Furst R, Hale T, Pott A, et al.. A worldwide assessment of changes in adherence to COVID-19 protective behaviours and hypothesized pandemic fatigue. Nat Hum Behav 2021. [Internet]. 2021. Aug 3 [cited 2021 Sep 4];1–16. Available from: . doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01049-0

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren