Cargando…

User experience of home-based AbC-19 SARS-CoV-2 antibody rapid lateral flow immunoassay test

The urgent need to scale up testing capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted the rapid development of point-of-care diagnostic tools such as lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA) for large-scale community-based rapid testing. However, studies of how the general public perform when using LFIA te...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jing, Min, Bond, Raymond, Robertson, Louise J., Moore, Julie, Kowalczyk, Amanda, Price, Ruth, Burns, William, Nesbit, M. Andrew, McLaughlin, James, Moore, Tara
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8782985/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35064150
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-05097-y
_version_ 1784638425232572416
author Jing, Min
Bond, Raymond
Robertson, Louise J.
Moore, Julie
Kowalczyk, Amanda
Price, Ruth
Burns, William
Nesbit, M. Andrew
McLaughlin, James
Moore, Tara
author_facet Jing, Min
Bond, Raymond
Robertson, Louise J.
Moore, Julie
Kowalczyk, Amanda
Price, Ruth
Burns, William
Nesbit, M. Andrew
McLaughlin, James
Moore, Tara
author_sort Jing, Min
collection PubMed
description The urgent need to scale up testing capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted the rapid development of point-of-care diagnostic tools such as lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA) for large-scale community-based rapid testing. However, studies of how the general public perform when using LFIA tests in different environmental settings are scarce. This user experience (UX) study of 264 participants in Northern Ireland aimed to gather a better understanding of how self-administered LFIA tests were performed by the general public at home. The UX performance was assessed via analysis of a post-test questionnaire including 30 polar questions and 11 7-point Likert scale questions, which covers the multidimensional aspects of UX in terms of ease of use, effectiveness, efficiency, accuracy and satisfaction. Results show that 96.6% of participants completed the test with an overall average UX score of 95.27% [95% confidence interval (CI) 92.71–97.83%], which suggests a good degree of user experience and effectiveness. Efficiency was assessed based on the use of physical resources and human support received, together with the mental effort of self-administering the test measured via NASA Task Load Index (TLX). The results for six TLX subscales show that the participants scored the test highest for mental demand and lowest for physical demand, but the average TLX score suggests that the general public have a relatively low level of mental workload when using LFIA self-testing at home. Five printed LFIA testing results (i.e. the ‘simulated’ results) were used as the ground truth to assess the participant’s performance in interpreting the test results. The overall agreement (accuracy) was 80.63% [95% CI 75.21–86.05%] with a Kappa score 0.67 [95% CI 0.58–0.75] indicating substantial agreement. The users scored lower in confidence when interpreting test results that were weak positive cases (due to the relatively low signal intensity in the test-line) compared to strong positive cases. The end-users also found that the kit was easier to use than they expected (p < 0.001) and 231 of 264 (87.5%) reported that the test kit would meet their requirements if they needed an antibody testing kit. The overall findings provide an insight into the opportunities for improving the design of self-administered SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing kits for the general public and to inform protocols for future UX studies of LFIA rapid test kits.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8782985
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87829852022-01-25 User experience of home-based AbC-19 SARS-CoV-2 antibody rapid lateral flow immunoassay test Jing, Min Bond, Raymond Robertson, Louise J. Moore, Julie Kowalczyk, Amanda Price, Ruth Burns, William Nesbit, M. Andrew McLaughlin, James Moore, Tara Sci Rep Article The urgent need to scale up testing capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted the rapid development of point-of-care diagnostic tools such as lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA) for large-scale community-based rapid testing. However, studies of how the general public perform when using LFIA tests in different environmental settings are scarce. This user experience (UX) study of 264 participants in Northern Ireland aimed to gather a better understanding of how self-administered LFIA tests were performed by the general public at home. The UX performance was assessed via analysis of a post-test questionnaire including 30 polar questions and 11 7-point Likert scale questions, which covers the multidimensional aspects of UX in terms of ease of use, effectiveness, efficiency, accuracy and satisfaction. Results show that 96.6% of participants completed the test with an overall average UX score of 95.27% [95% confidence interval (CI) 92.71–97.83%], which suggests a good degree of user experience and effectiveness. Efficiency was assessed based on the use of physical resources and human support received, together with the mental effort of self-administering the test measured via NASA Task Load Index (TLX). The results for six TLX subscales show that the participants scored the test highest for mental demand and lowest for physical demand, but the average TLX score suggests that the general public have a relatively low level of mental workload when using LFIA self-testing at home. Five printed LFIA testing results (i.e. the ‘simulated’ results) were used as the ground truth to assess the participant’s performance in interpreting the test results. The overall agreement (accuracy) was 80.63% [95% CI 75.21–86.05%] with a Kappa score 0.67 [95% CI 0.58–0.75] indicating substantial agreement. The users scored lower in confidence when interpreting test results that were weak positive cases (due to the relatively low signal intensity in the test-line) compared to strong positive cases. The end-users also found that the kit was easier to use than they expected (p < 0.001) and 231 of 264 (87.5%) reported that the test kit would meet their requirements if they needed an antibody testing kit. The overall findings provide an insight into the opportunities for improving the design of self-administered SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing kits for the general public and to inform protocols for future UX studies of LFIA rapid test kits. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-01-21 /pmc/articles/PMC8782985/ /pubmed/35064150 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-05097-y Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Jing, Min
Bond, Raymond
Robertson, Louise J.
Moore, Julie
Kowalczyk, Amanda
Price, Ruth
Burns, William
Nesbit, M. Andrew
McLaughlin, James
Moore, Tara
User experience of home-based AbC-19 SARS-CoV-2 antibody rapid lateral flow immunoassay test
title User experience of home-based AbC-19 SARS-CoV-2 antibody rapid lateral flow immunoassay test
title_full User experience of home-based AbC-19 SARS-CoV-2 antibody rapid lateral flow immunoassay test
title_fullStr User experience of home-based AbC-19 SARS-CoV-2 antibody rapid lateral flow immunoassay test
title_full_unstemmed User experience of home-based AbC-19 SARS-CoV-2 antibody rapid lateral flow immunoassay test
title_short User experience of home-based AbC-19 SARS-CoV-2 antibody rapid lateral flow immunoassay test
title_sort user experience of home-based abc-19 sars-cov-2 antibody rapid lateral flow immunoassay test
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8782985/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35064150
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-05097-y
work_keys_str_mv AT jingmin userexperienceofhomebasedabc19sarscov2antibodyrapidlateralflowimmunoassaytest
AT bondraymond userexperienceofhomebasedabc19sarscov2antibodyrapidlateralflowimmunoassaytest
AT robertsonlouisej userexperienceofhomebasedabc19sarscov2antibodyrapidlateralflowimmunoassaytest
AT moorejulie userexperienceofhomebasedabc19sarscov2antibodyrapidlateralflowimmunoassaytest
AT kowalczykamanda userexperienceofhomebasedabc19sarscov2antibodyrapidlateralflowimmunoassaytest
AT priceruth userexperienceofhomebasedabc19sarscov2antibodyrapidlateralflowimmunoassaytest
AT burnswilliam userexperienceofhomebasedabc19sarscov2antibodyrapidlateralflowimmunoassaytest
AT nesbitmandrew userexperienceofhomebasedabc19sarscov2antibodyrapidlateralflowimmunoassaytest
AT mclaughlinjames userexperienceofhomebasedabc19sarscov2antibodyrapidlateralflowimmunoassaytest
AT mooretara userexperienceofhomebasedabc19sarscov2antibodyrapidlateralflowimmunoassaytest