Cited by 20Health Policy Implementation ScienceSARS-CoV-2 detection and testingHealthcare Systems and Challenges

Perspectives on COVID-19 testing policies and practices: a qualitative study with scientific advisors and NHS health care workers in England

Open access
Martindale, Anne-Marie, Pilbeam, Caitlin, Mableson, Hayley, Tonkin-Crine, Sarah, Atkinson, Paul, Borek, Aleksandra, Lant, Suzannah, Gobat, Nina +2 more·2021·BMC Public Health

Abstract

Background: As COVID-19 death rates have risen and health-care systems have experienced increased demand, national testing strategies have come under scrutiny. Utilising qualitative interview data from a larger COVID-19 study, this paper provides insights into influences on and the enactment of national COVID-19 testing strategies for health care workers (HCWs) in English NHS settings during wave one of the COVID-19 pandemic (March–August 2020). Through the findings we aim to inform learning about COVID-19 testing policies and practices; and to inform future pandemic diagnostic preparedness. Methods: A remote qualitative, semi-structured longitudinal interview method was employed with a purposive snowball sample of senior scientific advisors to the UK Government on COVID-19, and HCWs employed in NHS primary and secondary health care settings in England. Twenty-four interviews from 13 participants were selected from the larger project dataset using a key term search, as not all of the transcripts contained references to testing. Framework analysis was informed by the non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability of patient-facing health and care technologies implementation framework (NASSS) and by normalisation process theory (NPT). Results: Our account highlights tensions between the communication and implementation of national testing developments; scientific advisor and HCW perceptions about infectiousness; and uncertainties about the responsibility for testing and its implications at the local level. Conclusions: Consideration must be given to the implications of mass NHS staff testing, including the accuracy of information communicated to HCWs; how HCWs interpret, manage, and act on testing guidance; and the influence these have on health care organisations and services.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12889-021-11285-8

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 11 · Cited by 20

Authors
Martindale, A.-M., Pilbeam, C., Mableson, H., Tonkin-Crine, S., Atkinson, P., Borek, A., Lant, S., Gobat, N., Solomon, T., & Sheard, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Martindale, Anne-Marie
Venue
BMC Public Health
Published
2021-06-24
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
1216-1216
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3174149552
Cited by
20
References
11
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 10
FWCI
4.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (104845/Z/14/Z)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • University of Oxford
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare Systems and Challenges
Keywords
COVID-19 testing, testing policy, healthcare workers, National Health Service, scientific advisors, pandemic preparedness, diagnostic testing, health technology implementation, Normalisation Process Theory, NASSS framework, infection control, England
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Testing, England, Health Personnel, Humans, State Medicine, Policy, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review