Background: Though the use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) home testing kits is increasing, individuals who use home tests are not accounted for in publicly reported COVID-19 metrics. As the pandemic and the methods for tracking cases evolve, it is critical to understand who the individuals excluded are, due to their use of home testing kits, relative to those included in the reported metrics.
Methods: Five New York State databases were linked to investigate trends in home-tested COVID-19 cases vs. laboratory-confirmed cases from November 2021 to April 2022. Frequency distributions, multivariate logistic regression adjusted odds ratios (aOR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to compare the characteristics of the home-tested and laboratory-tested people.
Results: Of the 591,227 confirmed COVID-19 cases interviewed, 71,531 (12%) of them underwent home tests, 515,001 (87%) underwent laboratory tests, and 5,695 (1%) underwent both home tests and laboratory tests during this period. Home-tested COVID-19 cases increased from only 1% in November 2021 to 22% in April 2022. Children aged 5–11 years with an aOR of 3.74 (95% CI: 3.53, 3.96) and adolescents aged 12–17 years with an aOR of 3.24 (95% CI: 3.07, 3.43) were more likely to undergo only home tests compared to adults aged 65 years and above. On the one hand, those who were “boosted” (aOR 1.87, 95% CI: 1.82, 1.93), those in K-12 school settings (aOR 2.33, 95% CI: 2.27, 2.40), or those who were possibly infected by a household member (aOR 1.17, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.22) were more likely to report home testing instead of laboratory testing. On the other hand, individuals who were hospitalized (aOR 0.04, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.06), who had underlying conditions (aOR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.87), who were pregnant (aOR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66, 0.86), and who were Hispanic (aOR 0.50: 95% CI: 0.48, 0.53), Asian (aOR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.28, 0.34), or Black (aOR 0.45, 95% CI: 0.42, 047) were less likely to choose home testing over laboratory testing.
Conclusion: The percentage of individuals with confirmed COVID-19 who used only home testing kits continues to rise. People who used only home testing were less likely to be hospitalized and were those with a lower likelihood of developing a severe disease given factors such as age, vaccination status, and underlying conditions. Thus, the official COVID-19 metrics primarily reflected individuals with severe illness or the potential for severe illness. There may be racial and ethnic differences in the use of home testing vs. laboratory testing.
Objectives: The main objective of this study was to assess the roles of traditional healers and the challenges they face in the of prevention and control of both local disease outbreaks and the COVID-19 pandemic, with a special emphasis on the work of traditional healers and healing centers in the East Gojjam Zone in northwestern Ethiopia, between 2020 and 2021.
Methods: From 25 February 2021 to 2 May 2021, a mixed-methods study (qualitative techniques combined with a quantitative approach) was carried out. The study was conducted by traditional healers and at healing centers in the East Gojjam Zone. The quantitative sample size was calculated based on the assumption of a single population proportion formula. As part of the qualitative research, levels of data saturation were continuously monitored, and were used to determine what the maximum number of study participants should be. Traditional healers and their clients were the study units for the quantitative component, whereas traditional healthcare providers (of all types) and religious leaders were purposively selected as the study units for the qualitative part. Descriptive and inferential statistical methods of analysis, and narrative- and content-wise methods of analysis, were used for the quantitative and qualitative components of this study, respectively.
Results: The quantitative findings of this study showed that 64.27% of respondents (95% CI 59.53% to 68.74%) had a good awareness of regional disease outbreaks and of the COVID-19 pandemic. Only 9.59% of people had a positive opinion regarding local disease outbreaks, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the preventive and control measures that were employed in response to these (95% CI 7.11% to 12.83%). In addition, this study revealed that a small percentage of participants (i.e., 2.16%) used traditional control and preventive measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and local disease outbreaks.
Conclusion: Less than one-tenth of respondents had a favorable attitude toward local disease outbreaks, the current COVID-19 pandemic, and the preventive and control measures that were employed in response to these. In addition, only a small number of study participants had actually used conventional control and preventive measures in response to local disease outbreaks and the COVID-19 pandemic. Nearly two-thirds of respondents had a good understanding of the preventive and control measures that were employed in response to local disease outbreaks and the COVID-19 pandemic.