Background Rapid antigen tests (RATs) may be included in national strategies for handling the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, as they provide test results rapidly, are easily performed outside laboratories, and enable immediate contract tracing. However, before implementation further clinical evaluation of test sensitivity is warranted. Objectives To examine the performance of Abbott’s Panbio TM COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device for SARS-CoV-2 testing in a low to medium prevalence setting in Norway. Study design A prospective study comparing the results of the Panbio RAT with PCR in 4857 parallel samples collected at a SARS-CoV-2 test station in Oslo, and from COVID-19 outbreaks in six Norwegian municipalities. Results A total of 4857 cases were included in the study; 3991 and 866 cases from the test station and the outbreak municipalities, respectively. The prevalence at the test station in Oslo was 6.3 %, and the overall sensitivity of the RAT was 74 %. Increased sensitivity was observed in patients who experienced symptoms (79 %) and when considering samples with viral loads above estimated level of infectivity (84 %), while it was lower in asymptomatic persons (55 %). In the outbreak municipalities, the overall prevalence was 6.9 %, and the total sensitivity of the RAT was 70 %. Conclusions Our results indicate that the test correctly identified most infectious individuals. Nevertheless, the sensitivity is considerably lower than for PCR, and it is important that the limitations of the test are kept in mind in the follow-up of tested individuals.

Romania has Europe's highest incidence and mortality of cervical cancer. While a free national cervical cancer-screening programme has been in operation since 2012, participation in the programme is low, particularly in minority populations. The aim of this study was to explore Roma women's (non)participation in the programme from women's own perspectives and those of healthcare providers and policy makers. We carried out fieldwork for a period of 125 days in 2015/16 involving 144 study participants in Cluj and Bucharest counties. Fieldwork entailed participant observation, qualitative interviewing and focus group discussions. A striking finding was that screening providers and Roma women had highly different takes on the national screening programme. We identified four fundamental questions about which there was considerable disagreement between them: whether a free national screening programme existed in the first place, whether Roma women were meant to be included in the programme if it did, whether Roma women wanted to take part in screening, and to what degree screening participation would really benefit women's health. On the background of insights from actor-network theory, the article discusses to what degree the programme could be said to speak to the interest of its intended Roma public, and considers the controversies in light of the literature on patient centred care and user involvement in health care. The paper contributes to the understanding of the health and health-related circumstances of the largest minority in Europe. It also problematizes the use of the concept of "barriers" in research into participation in cancer screening, and exemplifies how user involvement can potentially help transform and improve screening programmes.

From 2015, Norway has implemented high‐risk human papilloma virus (hrHPV) testing in primary screening for cervical cancer. Women aged 34–69 years, living in four counties, have been pseudo‐randomly assigned (1:1 randomization) to either hrHPV testing every 5 years (followed by cytology if hrHPV is positive), or cytology testing every 3 years (followed by hrHPV testing if low‐grade cytology is detected). We compared anxiety and depression scores among participants by screening arm and results. In total, 1,008 women answered a structured questionnaire that included the validated Patient Health Questionnaire‐4 (PHQ‐4). The Relative Risk Ratio (RRR) of mild vs . normal anxiety and depression scores, and moderate/severe vs . normal anxiety and depression scores, were estimated by multinomial logistic regression with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Compared to women who were screened with cytology, women randomized to hrHPV testing were not more likely to have mild anxiety and depression scores (RRR 0.96, CI 0.70–1.31) nor more likely to have moderate/severe anxiety and depression scores (RRR 1.14, CI 0.65–2.02). Women with five different combinations of abnormal screening test results were not more likely to have mild or moderate/severe vs . normal anxiety and depression scores than women with normal screening results. The likelihood of having abnormal long‐term (4–24 months after the screening) anxiety or depression scores among women 34 years and older was not affected by screening method or screening results. The results of our study suggest that a change to hrHPV testing in primary screening would not increase psychological distress among participants.