Public knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 serological and viral lineage laboratory testing and result interpretation: A GENCOV study cross-sectional survey

• Published in: Clinical biochemistry Vol. 118; p. 110607
• Main Authors: Morgan, Gregory, Briollais, Laurent, Clausen, Marc, Casalino, Selina, Mighton, Chloe, Chowdhary, Sunakshi, Frangione, Erika, Fung, Chun Yiu Jordan, Arnoldo, Saranya, Bearss, Erin, Binnie, Alexandra, Borgundvaag, Bjug, Dagher, Marc, Devine, Luke, Friedman, Steven M, Khan, Zeeshan, McGeer, Allison, McLeod, Shelley L, Richardson, David, Stern, Seth, Taher, Ahmed, Wong, Iris, Zarei, Natasha, Bombard, Yvonne, Lerner-Ellis, Jordan, Taher, Jennifer
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01-08-2023
• Subjects: COVID-19; Result interpretation; Serological testing; Viral lineage; COVID-19; Result interpretation; Viral lineage; Serological testing
• ISSN: 0009-9120; 1873-2933
• DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2023.110607

•A survey was conducted to assess public knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 laboratory tests.•Concepts related to SARS-CoV-2 test results were shown to be challenging for many.•Knowledge gaps related to immunity and vaccine effectiveness were identified.•Sociodemographic factors were associated with differences in knowledge.
Concepts related to SARS-CoV-2 laboratory testing and result interpretation can be challenging to understand. A cross-sectional survey of COVID-19 positive adults residing in Ontario, Canada was conducted to explore how well people understand SARS-CoV-2 laboratory tests and their associated results.
Participants were recruited through fliers or by prospective recruitment of outpatients and hospitalized inpatients with COVID-19. Enrolled participants included consenting adults with a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test result. An 11-item questionnaire was developed by researchers, nurses, and physicians in the study team and was administered online between April 2021 to May 2022 upon enrolment into the study.
Responses were obtained from 940 of 1106 eligible participants (85% participation rate). Most respondents understood 1) that antibody results should not influence adherence to social distancing measures (n = 602/888, 68%), 2) asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection following test positivity (n = 698/888, 79%), 3) serological test sensitivity in relation to post-infection timeline (n = 540/891, 61%), and 4) limitations of experts’ knowledge related to SARS-CoV-2 serology (n = 693/887, 78%). Conversely, respondents demonstrated challenges understanding 1) conflicting molecular and serological test results and their relationship with immune protection (n = 162/893, 18%) and 2) the impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on vaccine effectiveness (n = 235/891, 26%). Analysis of responses stratified by sociodemographic variables identified that respondents who were either: 1) female, 2) more educated, 3) aged 18–44, 4) from a high-income household, or 5) healthcare workers responded expectedly more often.
We have highlighted concepts related to SARS-CoV-2 laboratory tests and associated results which may be challenging to understand. The findings of this study enable us to identify 1) misconceptions related to various SARS-CoV-2 test results, 2) groups of individuals at risk, and 3) strategies to improve people’s understanding of their test results.