Testing programs for COVID-19 depend on the voluntary actions of members of the public for their success. Understanding people’s knowledge, attitudes, and behavior related to COVID-19 testing is, therefore, key to the design of effective testing programs worldwide. This paper reports on the findings of a rapid scoping review to map the extent, characteristics, and scope of social science research on COVID-19 testing and identifies key themes from the literature. Main findings include the discoveries that people are largely accepting of testing technologies and guidelines and that a sense of social solidarity is a key motivator of testing uptake. The main barriers to accessing and undertaking testing include uncertainty about eligibility and how to access tests, difficulty interpreting symptoms, logistical issues including transport to and from test sites and the discomfort of sample extraction, and concerns about the consequences of a positive result. The review found that existing research was limited in depth and scope. More research employing longitudinal and qualitative methods based in under-resourced settings and examining intersections between testing and experiences of social, political, and economic vulnerability is needed. Last, the findings of this review suggest that testing should be understood as a social process that is inseparable from processes of contact tracing and isolation and is embedded in people’s everyday routines, livelihoods and relationships.

Background: Mobile health interventions (MHI) offer the potential to help improve nasal corticosteroid (NCS) adherence in allergic rhinitis (AR). The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the current evidence on the effectiveness of MHI for improving NCS adherence in AR. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for randomised controlled trials filtered for publication dates between 2010 and 2021. We evaluated the effects of MHI aiming to improve NCS adherence on self-management outcomes in AR and comorbid conditions. Two reviewers independently screened potential studies, extracted study characteristics and outcomes from eligible papers and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0. High heterogeneity precluded metaanalysis. Data were descriptively and narratively synthesised.Results: Our searches identified 776 individual studies of which 4 met the inclusion criteria. These studies were heterogeneous with respect to participant, intervention and outcome characteristics. We considered all outcome-specific overall risk of bias assessments to be of high risk of bias except for two studies examining NCS adherence which received 'some concern' grades. The three studies which reported on NCS adherence found that MHI were associated with improvement in NCS adherence. Significant MHI-associated improvement in symptoms or diseasespecific quality of life was found in one study each, whilst no study reported significant differences in nasal patency.Conclusions: Whilst MHI showed potential to improve NCS adherence, their effect on clinical outcomes varied. Furthermore, robust studies with longer intervention durations are needed to adequately assess effects of MHI and their individual features on NCS adherence and clinical outcomes.

ObjectivesTo explore the acceptability of regular asymptomatic testing for SARS-CoV-2 on a university campus using saliva sampling for PCR analysis and the barriers and facilitators to participation.DesignCross-sectional surveys and qualitative semistructured interviews.SettingEdinburgh, Scotland.ParticipantsUniversity staff and students who had registered for the testing programme (TestEd) and provided at least one sample.Results522 participants completed a pilot survey in April 2021 and 1750 completed the main survey (November 2021). 48 staff and students who consented to be contacted for interview took part in the qualitative research. Participants were positive about their experience with TestEd with 94% describing it as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’. Facilitators to participation included multiple testing sites on campus, ease of providing saliva samples compared with nasopharyngeal swabs, perceived accuracy compared with lateral flow devices (LFDs) and reassurance of test availability while working or studying on campus. Barriers included concerns about privacy while testing, time to and methods of receiving results compared with LFDs and concerns about insufficient uptake in the university community. There was little evidence that the availability of testing on campus changed the behaviour of participants during a period when COVID-19 restrictions were in place.ConclusionsThe provision of free asymptomatic testing for COVID-19 on a university campus was welcomed by participants and the use of saliva-based PCR testing was regarded as more comfortable and accurate than LFDs. Convenience is a key facilitator of participation in regular asymptomatic testing programmes. Availability of testing did not appear to undermine engagement with public health guidelines.