PMC:7796111 / 41137-44814 JSONTXT

{"project":"LitCovid-sentences","denotations":[{"id":"T274","span":{"begin":0,"end":6},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T275","span":{"begin":7,"end":15},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T276","span":{"begin":16,"end":55},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T277","span":{"begin":56,"end":73},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T278","span":{"begin":74,"end":132},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T279","span":{"begin":133,"end":669},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T280","span":{"begin":670,"end":1080},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T281","span":{"begin":1081,"end":1172},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T282","span":{"begin":1173,"end":1233},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T283","span":{"begin":1234,"end":1508},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T284","span":{"begin":1509,"end":1773},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T285","span":{"begin":1774,"end":1795},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T286","span":{"begin":1796,"end":2042},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T287","span":{"begin":2043,"end":2228},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T288","span":{"begin":2229,"end":2499},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T289","span":{"begin":2500,"end":2531},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T290","span":{"begin":2532,"end":2618},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T291","span":{"begin":2619,"end":3071},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T292","span":{"begin":3072,"end":3364},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T293","span":{"begin":3365,"end":3506},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T294","span":{"begin":3507,"end":3677},"obj":"Sentence"}],"namespaces":[{"prefix":"_base","uri":"http://pubannotation.org/ontology/tao.owl#"}],"text":"3.2.4. Theme 4: Testing—Physical and Logistical Factors\n(i) Communication\nCommunication was a pivotal factor throughout the process. Most of the participants referred to the appropriateness and acceptability of communications from the university, including the clear sign-up instructions provided at the outset, concise information about testing and the processes, and appropriate approaches to communication of test results: “yes it was good, we didn’t get told when we had negative results but then we got an email at the end of the day saying that anyone who was positive had been contacted so obviously you knew that you were negative” (P121, female, Yr1, student). Others highlighted problems that had occurred with communications, such as delays in the provision of instructions, and some “less clear” communications that had led to misunderstanding about the purpose of the testing, how to take the swab tests and how samples would be used “I think it would have been better if you got an email every time, just because then you’re kind of like well did they do my test?... There is always a little thing in the back of your head like did it actually test negative? Or did my test not get there?” (P101, female, Yr5, student). Both students and staff had expected to receive their antibody test results but had not received it during the study period, and the lack of communication related to when, or if, results would be available affected adherence to the antibody testing element of the programme. Staff highlighted some inadequacies in university-wide communications about the self-isolation processes and support that students could expect to receive, and the time they spent clarifying communications with students had significantly increased staff workloads.\n(ii) Physical Testing\nThe act of testing itself was acceptable to the vast majority of participants, and there was no consensus on the preferred methods of testing between saliva or swabs (for presence of SARS-CoV-2) or finger-prick antibody test (for prior exposure). Several students spoke of the efforts staff had made to assist in the process, and video materials, leaflets and explanatory emails were particularly valued to assist with self-testing. A minority referred to negative aspects of the testing (such as swab tests being physically unpleasant to undertake or a fear of needles), but these factors did not appear to deter any of the students from participating and were not reported as reasons for missed tests.\n(iii) Practicalities of Testing\nNo students or staff raised any significant concerns related to the testing processes. There was a general consensus that the frequency of testing was appropriate, and the collection and drop-off locations were convenient, particularly for those who were based on campus: “I thought it was really easy, erm and erm we noticed because the drop off and the collection station is opposite our office, we noticed that the participation from the students… who are living on campus was really, really good.” (P123, female, staff, administrator). Some participants raised practical barriers, such as the logistics of collecting tests when self-isolating, periods of stock depletion which meant swabbing was unavailable, or further challenges related to timetabling, “I think it was pretty much all positive, the only thing was the timings. It was a bit annoying rushing through like some lecture or like running over to put them in before the deadline” (P94, female, Yr1, student). Furthermore, the logistical challenges associated with maintaining adequate supplies of test kits and ensuring all students had access to them, were highlighted by staff."}

{"project":"LitCovid-PubTator","denotations":[{"id":"317","span":{"begin":145,"end":157},"obj":"Species"},{"id":"320","span":{"begin":1861,"end":1873},"obj":"Species"},{"id":"321","span":{"begin":1979,"end":1989},"obj":"Species"},{"id":"323","span":{"begin":3077,"end":3089},"obj":"Species"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A317","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"317","obj":"Tax:9606"},{"id":"A320","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"320","obj":"Tax:9606"},{"id":"A321","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"321","obj":"Tax:2697049"},{"id":"A323","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"323","obj":"Tax:9606"}],"namespaces":[{"prefix":"Tax","uri":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/taxonomy/"},{"prefix":"MESH","uri":"https://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/"},{"prefix":"Gene","uri":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/"},{"prefix":"CVCL","uri":"https://web.expasy.org/cellosaurus/CVCL_"}],"text":"3.2.4. Theme 4: Testing—Physical and Logistical Factors\n(i) Communication\nCommunication was a pivotal factor throughout the process. Most of the participants referred to the appropriateness and acceptability of communications from the university, including the clear sign-up instructions provided at the outset, concise information about testing and the processes, and appropriate approaches to communication of test results: “yes it was good, we didn’t get told when we had negative results but then we got an email at the end of the day saying that anyone who was positive had been contacted so obviously you knew that you were negative” (P121, female, Yr1, student). Others highlighted problems that had occurred with communications, such as delays in the provision of instructions, and some “less clear” communications that had led to misunderstanding about the purpose of the testing, how to take the swab tests and how samples would be used “I think it would have been better if you got an email every time, just because then you’re kind of like well did they do my test?... There is always a little thing in the back of your head like did it actually test negative? Or did my test not get there?” (P101, female, Yr5, student). Both students and staff had expected to receive their antibody test results but had not received it during the study period, and the lack of communication related to when, or if, results would be available affected adherence to the antibody testing element of the programme. Staff highlighted some inadequacies in university-wide communications about the self-isolation processes and support that students could expect to receive, and the time they spent clarifying communications with students had significantly increased staff workloads.\n(ii) Physical Testing\nThe act of testing itself was acceptable to the vast majority of participants, and there was no consensus on the preferred methods of testing between saliva or swabs (for presence of SARS-CoV-2) or finger-prick antibody test (for prior exposure). Several students spoke of the efforts staff had made to assist in the process, and video materials, leaflets and explanatory emails were particularly valued to assist with self-testing. A minority referred to negative aspects of the testing (such as swab tests being physically unpleasant to undertake or a fear of needles), but these factors did not appear to deter any of the students from participating and were not reported as reasons for missed tests.\n(iii) Practicalities of Testing\nNo students or staff raised any significant concerns related to the testing processes. There was a general consensus that the frequency of testing was appropriate, and the collection and drop-off locations were convenient, particularly for those who were based on campus: “I thought it was really easy, erm and erm we noticed because the drop off and the collection station is opposite our office, we noticed that the participation from the students… who are living on campus was really, really good.” (P123, female, staff, administrator). Some participants raised practical barriers, such as the logistics of collecting tests when self-isolating, periods of stock depletion which meant swabbing was unavailable, or further challenges related to timetabling, “I think it was pretty much all positive, the only thing was the timings. It was a bit annoying rushing through like some lecture or like running over to put them in before the deadline” (P94, female, Yr1, student). Furthermore, the logistical challenges associated with maintaining adequate supplies of test kits and ensuring all students had access to them, were highlighted by staff."}