PuSH - Publikationsserver des Helmholtz Zentrums München: A telemedicine-guided self-collection approach for PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 testing: Comparative study.

Informationen

Hinweise zu Qualitätskriterien von Zeitschriften

Open-Access-Richtlinie der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft 2016

CC Licencences

Metriken für Publikationen

Navigation

Startseite

English

EVA: Veröffentlichen

Neuer EVA Antrag

Recherche

Erweiterte Suche

Durchblättern nach ...

... HMGU-Autoren/Konsortien

... Organisationsstruktur

... Zeitschriften

... Publikationstypen

... Forschungsdaten

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Erscheinungsjahr

Publikationen im Überblick

Statistik

HGF Fortschrittsbericht

OA Publikationen

Eintragen

Neue Publikation eintragen

Neue Publikation holen aus...

...EVA

Fehlende Publikation melden

Highlights

Suche

Hilfe & Kontakt

Ansprechpartner

Hilfe

Datenschutz

Helmholtz Open Science

Bibliometrische Indikatoren

SHERPA/RoMEO

DOAJ

Export:

Text

Endnote (RIS) BIB

BibTeX

Würstle, S.* ; Erber, J.* ; Hanselmann, M.* ; Hoffmann, D. ; Werfel, S.* ; Hering, S. ; Weidlich, S.* ; Schneider, J.* ; Franke, R.* ; Maier, M.* ; Henkel, A.* ; Schmid, R.M.* ; Protzer, U. ; Laxy, M.* ; Spinner, C.D.*

A telemedicine-guided self-collection approach for PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 testing: Comparative study.

JMIR Form. Res. 6:e32564 (2022)

Verlagsversion

DOI

PMC

	Open Access Gold

Abstract
Metriken
Zusatzinfos

BACKGROUND: Large-scale PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 testing is expensive, resource-intensive, and time-consuming. A self-collection approach is a probable alternative; however, it requires evaluating the feasibility, expenses, and the ability to prevent infections. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare an innovative self-collection approach with a regular SARS-CoV-2 testing strategy in a large European industrial manufacturing site. METHODS: The feasibility of a telemedical PCR-based self-collection approach was assessed for 150 employees (intervention group) and compared with a regular SARS-CoV-2 testing approach (n=143, control group). Acceptance, ergonomics, and efficacy were evaluated using a software application. A simulation model was implemented to evaluate the effectiveness. An interactive R shiny app was created to enable customized simulations. RESULTS: The test results were successfully communicated and interpreted without uncertainty by 76% and 77% of the participants in the intervention and control groups, respectively (P=.96). The ratings for the acceptability, ergonomics, and efficacy of the intervention group were noninferior when compared with those of the control group (acceptability: 71.6% versus 37.6%; ergonomics: 88.1% versus 74.5%; efficacy: 86.4% versus 77.5%). The self-collection approach was found to be less time consuming (23 min versus 38 min, P<0.001). The simulation model indicated that both testing approaches reduce the risk of infection and the self-collection approach tends to be slightly less effective owing to the lower sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: The self-collection approach for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis is technically feasible and is well rated in terms of acceptance, ergonomics, and efficacy. The simulation model facilitates the evaluation of the test effectiveness; nonetheless, considering the context specificity, appropriate adaption by the companies is required.

Impact Factor

Scopus SNIP

Altmetric

0.000

0.754