Point-of-Care diagnostic of SARS-CoV-2: knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions (KAP) of medical workforce in Italy

Main Article Content

Matteo Riccò http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6525-2159
Pietro Ferraro
Giovanni Gualerzi
Silvia Ranzieri https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9607-8624
Nicola Luigi Bragazzi https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8409-868X
Federica Balzarini http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2104-8471
Carlo Signorelli https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0960-9563

Keywords

Point-of-care tests, Rapid tests, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Knowledge, attitudes, practices

Abstract

Introduction. The present study aims to characterize knowledge, attitudes and beliefs in a sample of medical professionals towards point-of-care (POC) rapid tests for SARS-CoV-2 in Italy (April 2020). Material and Methods. A total of 561 professionals (42.6% males, 26.9% ≥ 50-year-old) compiled a specifically designed web questionnaire on characteristics of POC rapid tests. They were asked whether they would change daily practice and make clinical decisions according to POC tests. Multivariate odds ratios (aOR) for predictors of propensity towards the aforementioned behavioral outcomes were calculated through regression analysis. Results. Overall, only 51.9% knew the official recommendations of the Italian Health Authorities for POC tests, while 26.0% of respondents considered POC tests for COVID-19 highly reliable. Still, 40.3% of respondents would change daily practice because of such tests, and 38.5% would make clinical decisions based of their results. Actual understanding of specificity and sensitivity of POC tests was not associated with assessed behavioral outcomes: main positive effectors were identified in perceived reliability and usefulness of rapid tests, acknowledging the existence of official recommendations, understanding the limited clinical implications of POC tests, and working as occupational physicians were characterized as negative effectors.  Conclusions. Propensity of sampled professionals towards POC tests for COVID-19 was diffusely unsatisfying. While actual understanding of accuracy of such tests was not a main effector of propensity, previous experiences with other POC tests in daily practice, particularly among occupational physicians may have impaired overall acceptance of such instruments.

a

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...
Abstract 512 | PDF Downloads 299

References

1. European Centre for Diseases Prevention and Control (ECDC). An overview of the rapid test situation for COVID-19 diagnosis in the EU / EEA. Stockholm; 2020.
2. Cassaniti I, Novazzi F, Giardina F, et al. Performance of VivaDiagTM COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test is inadequate for diagnosis of COVID-19 in acute patients referring to emergency room department. J Med Virol. 2020;epub ahead of print. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25800
3. World Health Organization (WHO) Advice on the use of point-of- care immunodiagnostic tests for COVID-19. World Health Organization. Geneva; 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/advice-on-the-use-of-point-of-care-immunodiagnostic-tests-for-covid-19
4. Loeffelholz MJ, Tang Y-W. Laboratory Diagnosis of Emerging Human Coronavirus Infections — The State of the Art. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020;9:747-756
5. Lassaunière R, Frische A, Harboe ZB, et al. Evaluation of nine commercial SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays. 2020;1-15. Preprint available from: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/04/10/2020.04.09.20056325.full.pdf
6. Paradiso AV, Summa S De, Loconsole D, et al. Clinical meanings of rapid serological assay in patients tested for SARS-Co2 RT-PCR 2020;1-16 Preprint available from: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/04/06/2020.04.03.20052183.full.pdf
7. Li Z, Yi Y, Luo X, et al. Development and Clinical Application of A Rapid IgM‐IgG Combined Antibody Test for SARS‐CoV‐2 Infection Diagnosis. J Med Virol. 2020;epub ahead of print. doi: doi: 10.1002/jmv.25727.
8. Du Z, Zhu F, Guo F, et al. Detection of antibodies against SARS‐CoV‐2 in patients with COVID‐19.J Med Virol. 2020;epub ahed of print. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25820
9. Pérez-Garcia F, Pérez-Tanoira R, Romanyk J, et al. Rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by detecting IgG and IgM antibodies with an immunochromatographic device: a prospective single-center study. 2020;1-15. Preprint available from: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/04/15/2020.04.11.20062158.full.pdf
10. Regional Decree No. 350 - 16/04/2020 of the Emilia Romagna Region [in Italian]
11. Italian Ministry of Health - General Directorate for Health Prevention. [Update on guidelines for diagnostic tests and criteria for proriority assessment. Update on laboratory diagnoses]. April 3, 2020. Document Number: 0011715-03/04/2020-DGPRE-DGPRE-P [in Italian]
12. Italian Society for Occupational Medicine (SIML). [Role of serological tests in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in the ongoing epidemic of COVID-19 in Italy: operative insturction for the Occupational Physician]. 2020. Available from: https://www.siml.it/post/covid-19-indicazioni-per-i-medici-competenti
13. Lian J, Jin X, Hao S, et al. Analysis of Epidemiological and Clinical features in older patients with Corona Virus. Clin Infect Dis 2020;epub ahead of print. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa242/5811557
14. Yang J, Zheng Y, Gou X, et al. Prevalence of comorbidities in the novel Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;Epub ahead of print. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.03.017
15. Guan W, Liang W, Zhao Y, et al. Comorbidity and its impact on 1590 patients with Covid-19 in China: A Nationwide Analysis. Eur Respir J 2020;epub ahed of print. doi: 10.1183/13993003.00547-2020
16. Lippi G, Mattiuzzi C, Bovo C, et al. Current laboratory diagnostics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Acta Biomed 2020; 91 (2): 137-45. doi: 10.23750/abm.v91i2.9548
17. Moro M, Vigezzi GP, Capraro M, et al. 2019-novel coronavirus survey: knowledge and attitudes of hospital staff of a large Italian teaching hospital. Acta Biomed 2020;91(3-S):29–34. doi: 10.23750/abm.v91i3-S.9419
18. Signorelli C, Scognamiglio T, Odone A. COVID-19 in Italy: impact of containment measures and prevalence estimates of infection in the general population. Acta Biomed 2020;91(3-S):175–179. doi: 10.23750/abm.v91i3-S.9511
19. Signorelli C, Fara GM. COVID-19 : Hygiene and Public Health to the front. Acta Biomed 2020;91(3-S):7–8. doi: 10.23750/abm.v91i3-S.9507
20. Brcak M, Beck O, Bosch T, et al. European Guidelines For Workplace Drug Testing In Oral Fluid. Drug Test Anal. 2018;10(3):402–415. doi: 10.1002/dta.2229
21. Rosso GL, Montomoli C, Morini L, et al. Seven years of workplace drug testing in Italy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug Test Anal. 2017;9(6):844–852. doi: 10.1002/dta.2189
22. Signorelli C, Riccò M, Odone A. The Italian National health service expenditure on workplace prevention and safety (2006-2013): A national-level analysis. Ann Ig 2016;28(5):313-8. doi: 10.7416/ai.2016.2111
23. Huang Y, Xu S, Lei W, et al. Knowledge , Attitudes , and Practices Regarding Zika : Paper ¬ and Internet ¬ Based Survey in Zhejiang , China. JMIR Public Heal Surveill 2017. 2017;3(4):e81. doi: 10.2196/publichealth.7663
24. Heiervang E, Goodman R. Advantages and limitations of web-based surveys : evidence from a child mental health survey. Soc Psychiat Epidemiol. 2011;46(1):69–76. doi: 10.1007/s00127-009-0171-9
25. Palumbo R, Annarumma C, Adinolfi P, et al. The Italian Health Literacy Project: Insights From the Assessment of Health Literacy Skills in Italy. Health Policy. 2016;120(9):1087-1094. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.08.007.
26. Riccò M, Razio B, Panato C, et al. Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Agricultural Workers towards Tetanus Vaccine: a Field Report. Ann Ig 2017;29(4):239–55. doi: 10.7416/ai.2017.2156
27. Riccò M, Cattani S, Veronesi L, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and practices of construction workers towards tetanus vaccine in northern Italy. 2016;54(6):554-563. doi: 10.2486/indhealth.2015-0249