Delivering COVID self‐tests through GetaKit.ca: Creating testing access during a pandemic

O’Byrne, Patrick; Orser, Lauren; Musten, Alexandra; Ho, Nikki; Haines, Marlene; Lindsay, Jennifer

doi:10.1111/phn.13168

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Test positivity (new infections detected). Across twenty studies, new infections detected by COVIDST varied from 0.02% to 27% [22,25,27,28,31,[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]. In two other studies, test positivity varied from 12% to 83.3% during the delta wave and 41.7% to 87.2% during the omicron wave [29,49].…”

Section: Synthesized Results For Secondary Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Self-tests for COVID-19: What is the evidence? A living systematic review and meta-analysis (2020–2023)

Anand,

Vialard,

Esmail

et al. 2024

PLOS Glob Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

COVID-19 self-testing strategy (COVIDST) can rapidly identify symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals and their contacts, potentially reducing transmission. In this living systematic review, we evaluated the evidence for real-world COVIDST performance. Two independent reviewers searched six databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, World Health Organization database, Cochrane COVID-19 registry, Europe PMC) for the period April 1st, 2020, to January 18th, 2023. Data on studies evaluating COVIDST against laboratory-based conventional testing and reported on diagnostic accuracy, feasibility, acceptability, impact, and qualitative outcomes were abstracted. Bivariate random effects meta-analyses of COVIDST accuracy were performed (n = 14). Subgroup analyses (by sampling site, symptomatic/asymptomatic infection, supervised/unsupervised strategy, with/without digital supports) were conducted. Data from 70 included studies, conducted across 25 countries with a median sample size of 817 (range: 28–784,707) were pooled. Specificity and DOR was high overall, irrespective of subgroups (98.37–99.71%). Highest sensitivities were reported for: a) symptomatic individuals (73.91%, 95%CI: 68.41–78.75%; n = 9), b) mid-turbinate nasal samples (77.79%, 95%CI: 56.03–90.59%; n = 14), c) supervised strategy (86.67%, 95%CI: 59.64–96.62%; n = 13), and d) use of digital interventions (70.15%, 95%CI: 50.18–84.63%; n = 14). Lower sensitivity was attributed to absence of symptoms, errors in test conduct and absence of supervision or a digital support. We found no difference in COVIDST sensitivity between delta and omicron pre-dominant period. Digital supports increased confidence in COVIDST reporting and interpretation (n = 16). Overall acceptability was 91.0–98.7% (n = 2) with lower acceptability reported for daily self-testing (39.5–51.1%). Overall feasibility was 69.0–100.0% (n = 5) with lower feasibility (35.9–64.6%) for serial self-testing. COVIDST decreased closures in school, workplace, and social events (n = 4). COVIDST is an effective rapid screening strategy for home-, workplace- or school-based screening, for symptomatic persons, and for preventing transmission during outbreaks. These data will guide COVIDST policy. Our review demonstrates that COVIDST has paved the way for self-testing in pandemics worldwide.

show abstract

Section: Synthesized Results For Secondary Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Across fifteen studies, COVIDST digital supports used were: online platforms (n = 6), app-based COVIDST (n = 6), video-based instructions (n = 5), and online supervised COVIDST (n = 6) [ 22 – 24 , 32 , 34 , 38 – 40 , 45 , 46 , 49 – 51 , 59 – 62 , 64 , 71 , 83 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-tests for COVID-19: What is the evidence? A living systematic review and meta-analysis (2020–2023)

Anand,

Vialard,

Esmail

et al. 2024

PLOS Glob Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In September 2021, we launched GetaKit.ca/COVID [5] through which persons could complete an online risk assessment and obtain 1 or 2 free rt-LAMP COVID self-tests by mail, if eligible. Over the study period, 7781 orders were placed, of which 53% (n = 4160) were eligible; in total, we distributed 6469 COVID self-tests through these 4160 orders.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For this study, we used the Lucira Check-It® real-time LAMP (rt-LAMP) self-test, with the goal of determining the outcomes of an online system for distributing these tests. While we have previously described the overall uptake of this project (O'Byrne et al [5]), herein we report on the correlates of those who reported test results, those who reported positive test results, and those who reported being vaccinated against COVID. These results shed light on implications for online access to self-testing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…To evaluate the uptake, acceptability, and feasibility of self-testing, we developed a website (GetaKit.ca/COVID) through which persons could register and complete a risk self-assessment. The results of the self-assessment [5] dictated participants next steps, which included: (1) recommendations to seek in-person care, (2) the distribution of 1 or 2 COVID self-tests via mail to a participant's home address, or (3) no indication for testing. For this study, we used the Lucira Check-It® real-time LAMP (rt-LAMP) self-test, with the goal of determining the outcomes of an online system for distributing these tests.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Real world outcomes of distributing Lucira Check-It® COVID self-tests in Ontario, Canada: the GetaKit COVID study

Orser,

Squires,

Musten

et al. 2024

BMC Public Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In Ontario, Canada we developed and implemented an online screening algorithm for the distribution of HIV self-tests, known as GetaKit. During the COVID pandemic, we adapted the GetaKit algorithm to screen for COVID based on population and infection data and distributed COVID rt-LAMP self-tests (using the Lucira Check-It®) to eligible participants. Methods GetaKit/COVID was a prospective observational study that occurred over a 7-month period from September 2021 to April 2022. All potential participants completed an online registration and risk assessment, including demographic information, COVID symptoms and risk factors, and vaccination status. Bivariate comparisons were performed for three outcomes: results reporting status, vaccination status, and COVID diagnosis status. Data were analysed using Chi-Square for categorial covariates and Independent Samples T-Test and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous covariates. Bivariate logistic regression models were applied to examine associations between the covariates and outcomes. Results During the study period, we distributed 6469 COVID self-tests to 4160 eligible participants; 46% identified as Black, Indigenous or a Person of Colour (BIPOC). Nearly 70% of participants reported their COVID self-test results; 304 of which were positive. Overall, 91% also reported being vaccinated against COVID. Statistical analysis found living with five or fewer people, having tested for COVID previously, and being fully vaccinated were positive factors in results reporting. For COVID vaccination, people from large urban centers, who identified their ethnicity as white, and who reported previous COVID testing were more likely to be fully vaccinated. Finally, being identified as a contact of someone who had tested positive for COVID and the presence of COVID-related symptoms were found to be positive factors in diagnosis. Conclusions While most participants who accessed this service were vaccinated against COVID and the majority of diagnoses were identified in participants who had symptoms of, or an exposure to, COVID, our program was able to appropriately link participants to recommended follow-up based on reported risks and results. These findings highlight the utility of online screening algorithms to provide health services, particularly for persons with historical barriers to healthcare access, such as BIPOC or lower-income groups.

show abstract

Self-tests for COVID-19: what is the evidence? A living systematic review and meta-analysis (2020-2023)

Anand,

Vialard,

Esmail

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

COVID-19 self-testing strategy (COVIDST) can rapidly identify symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals and their contacts, potentially reducing transmission. In this living systematic review, we evaluated the evidence for real-world COVIDST performance. Two independent reviewers searched six databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, World Health Organization database, Cochrane COVID-19 registry, Europe PMC) for the period April 1st, 2020, to January 18th, 2023. Data on studies evaluating COVIDST against laboratory-based conventional testing and reported on diagnostic accuracy, feasibility, acceptability, impact, and qualitative outcomes were abstracted. Bivariate random effects meta-analyses of COVIDST accuracy were performed (n=14). Subgroup analyses (by sampling site, symptomatic/asymptomatic infection, supervised/unsupervised strategy, with/without digital supports) were conducted. Data from 70 included studies, conducted across 25 countries with a median sample size of 817 (range: 28-784,707) were pooled. Specificity was high overall, irrespective of subgroups (98.37-99.71%). Highest sensitivities were reported for: a) symptomatic individuals (73.91%, 95%CI: 68.41-78.75%; n=9), b) mid-turbinate nasal samples (77.79%, 95%CI: 56.03-90.59%; n=14), c) supervised strategy (86.67%, 95%CI: 59.64-96.62%; n=13), and d) presence of digital interventions (70.15%, 95%CI: 50.18-84.63%; n=14). Sensitivity was lower in asymptomatic populations (40.18%, 95% CI: 21.52-62.20%; n=4), due to errors in test conduct and absence of supervision or a digital support. We found no difference in COVIDST sensitivity between delta and omicron pre-dominant period. Digital supports increased confidence in COVIDST reporting and interpretation (n=16). Overall acceptability was 91.0-98.7% (n=2) with lower acceptability reported for daily self-testing (39.5-51.1%). Feasibility was 69.0-100.0% (n=5) with lower feasibility (35.9-64.6%) for serial self-testing. COVIDST decreased closures in school, workplace, and social events (n=4). COVIDST is an effective rapid screening strategy for home-, workplace- or school-based screening, for symptomatic persons, and for preventing transmission during outbreaks. This data is useful for updating COVIDST policy. Our review demonstrates that COVIDST has paved the way for the introduction of self-tests, worldwide.

show abstract

Delivering COVID self‐tests through GetaKit.ca: Creating testing access during a pandemic

Cited by 4 publications

References 10 publications

Self-tests for COVID-19: What is the evidence? A living systematic review and meta-analysis (2020–2023)

Self-tests for COVID-19: What is the evidence? A living systematic review and meta-analysis (2020–2023)

Real world outcomes of distributing Lucira Check-It® COVID self-tests in Ontario, Canada: the GetaKit COVID study

Self-tests for COVID-19: what is the evidence? A living systematic review and meta-analysis (2020-2023)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About