Perceived Effectiveness, Safety, and Attitudes Toward the Use of Nucleic Tests of SARS-CoV-2 Among Clinicians and General Public in China.

Ruirui Lan,Casper J P Zhang,Kengbo Lu,Robin Sujanto,Wai-Kit Ming,Zonglin He

doi:10.3389/fpubh.2020.599862

Ruirui Lan, Casper J P Zhang + Show 4 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.599862

Copy DOI

Abstract

Objective: To assess whether there is a knowledge gap about the use of test kits for residents and to explore the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of using test kits in China during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic. Method: An online-based, nationwide, and cross-sectional study was conducted. A total of 1,167 respondents were recruited from June 19 to July 2, 2020. All participants completed a validated questionnaire written in Chinese. Electronic consent was obtained from all participants upon their agreement to commence the questionnaire. Perceived efficacy, safety, and their attitudes toward the use of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing kits were measured.Result: The majority of the study respondents were female [749 (64.2%)], aged 31–40 years old [372 (31.9%)], and located in mainland China [1,137 (97.4%)]. The majority of the respondents held a positive view toward the introduction of the fast-track approval policy for novel coronavirus testing products (6.16 ± 1.30) as well as toward putting more investment in scientific research and biomedicine to improve the detection accuracy of detection kits (5.94 ± 1.55) in China. The respondents valued the detection accuracy more as opposed to the detection time of the testing kits (4.66 ± 2.00), whereas few participants agreed that in the research and development process, detection accuracy could be sacrificed to speed up production and coverage capacity (3.02 ± 2.04).Conclusion: The majority of the participants have a basic knowledge of the detection methods of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the types of test kits, as well as great confidence in China's domestic production of test kits and decisions. However, how basic knowledge, high compliance, and positive attitudes play a role in easing the tension of the pandemic still remains unknown.

Highlights

With the fast spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID19) has infected more than 16.6 million people and caused nearly 0.66 million deaths globally, according to the WHO report as of the end of July 2020 [1]
In the question “How do you identify a suspect of COVID-19?” the majority of the three groups of participants {OP [512 (79.6%)], HW1 [450 (96.6%)}, and HW2 [13 (76.5%)]) believed that “The COVID-19 nucleic acid, antigen, and antibody tests were positive” was the right answer
In the question “Which means of COVID-19 detection have you heard of during this pandemic?” the nucleic acid test was the detection method most heard among three groups {OP [629 (97.8%)], HW1 [455 (97.6%)], and HW2 [17 (100%)]}, whereas the antigen test {HW1 [163 (35.0%)], HW2 [3 (17.6%)]} and the antibody test {HW1 [244 (52.4%)], HW2 [11 (64.7%)]} were more often heard among healthcare workers, according to Figure 2

Summary

Introduction

With the fast spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID19) has infected more than 16.6 million people and caused nearly 0.66 million deaths globally, according to the WHO report as of the end of July 2020 [1]. Vaccines targeting the viral spike protein or RNA in the market for COVID-19 prevention are still under development [3], while the transmissive ability of SARS-CoV-2 continues to increase with the mutation of the D614G gene on the spike protein [4]. Hundreds of testing kits have been available in the market to meet the exponential demand in testing, targeting antigens, antibodies [immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM)], and the viral RNA of SARSCoV-2 to confirm infection [8, 9]. Studies have shown that some COVID-19 patients tested positive again after discharge, and that multiple false-negative RT-PCR-related results were suspected to be related to prolonged nucleic acid transformation time rather than the recurrence of the infection [12]. Research suggests that it is optimal to combine the serological total-antibody count and the RT-PCR test to get an enhanced sensitivity of 98.6% and specificity of 98.7% [14]

Results

Discussion

Conclusion