Use of a Digital Assistant to Report COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Self-test Results to Health Departments in 6 US Communities

Importance: Widespread distribution of rapid antigen tests is integral to the US strategy to address COVID-19; however, it is estimated that few rapid antigen test results are reported to local departments of health. Objective: To characterize how often individuals in 6 communities throughout the United States used a digital assistant to log rapid antigen test results and report them to their local departments of health. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study is based on anonymously collected data from the beneficiaries of the Say Yes! Covid Test program, which distributed more than 3000000 rapid antigen tests at no cost to residents of 6 communities (Louisville, Kentucky; Indianapolis, Indiana; Fulton County, Georgia; O'ahu, Hawaii; Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Michigan; and Chattanooga, Tennessee) between April and October 2021. A descriptive evaluation of beneficiary use of a digital assistant for logging and reporting their rapid antigen test results was performed. Interventions: Widespread community distribution of rapid antigen tests. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number and proportion of tests logged and reported to the local department of health through the digital assistant. Results: A total of 313000 test kits were distributed, including 178785 test kits that were ordered using the digital assistant. Among all distributed kits, 14398 households (4.6%) used the digital assistant, but beneficiaries reported three-quarters of their rapid antigen test results to their state public health departments (30965 tests reported of 41465 total test results [75.0%]). The reporting behavior varied by community and was significantly higher among communities that were incentivized for reporting test results vs those that were not incentivized or partially incentivized (90.5% [95% CI, 89.9%-91.2%] vs 70.5%; [95% CI, 70.0%-71.0%]). In all communities, positive tests were less frequently reported than negative tests (60.4% [95% CI, 58.1%-62.8%] vs 75.5% [95% CI, 75.1%-76.0%]). Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that application-based reporting with incentives may be associated with increased reporting of rapid tests for COVID-19. However, increasing the adoption of the digital assistant may be a critical first step.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
UNC Libraries
Published
2025-02-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.17615/2x3z-be32
Primary Topic
SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Use of a Digital Assistant to Report COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Self-test Results to Health Departments in 6 US Communities

Vik Kheterpal, John Broach, G. Corbie-Smith, Laurel O’Connor et al.
UNC Libraries
SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
article

Use of a Digital Assistant to Report COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Self-test Results to Health Departments in 6 US Communities

Vik Kheterpal, John Broach, G. Corbie-Smith, Laurel O’Connor, Basyl Durnan, Ashwani Soni, Seanan Tarrant, William Heetderks, M. Cohen-Wolkowiez, Warren A. Kibbe, Bernhard Gerber, Catherine A. Herbert, David D. McManus, Syed Naeem, Hai Lin, S. Behar, Juan Manuel Márquez-Romero, Laura F. Gibson, Nathaniel Hafer, Thejas Suvarna, Ben Kalibala, Bruce Barton, Aditi Singh, Joon Sang Baek, Shannon Schrader, C. Nowak, Qi Shi
article en

Abstract

Importance: Widespread distribution of rapid antigen tests is integral to the US strategy to address COVID-19; however, it is estimated that few rapid antigen test results are reported to local departments of health. Objective: To characterize how often individuals in 6 communities throughout the United States used a digital assistant to log rapid antigen test results and report them to their local departments of health. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study is based on anonymously collected data from the beneficiaries of the Say Yes! Covid Test program, which distributed more than 3000000 rapid antigen tests at no cost to residents of 6 communities (Louisville, Kentucky; Indianapolis, Indiana; Fulton County, Georgia; O'ahu, Hawaii; Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Michigan; and Chattanooga, Tennessee) between April and October 2021. A descriptive evaluation of beneficiary use of a digital assistant for logging and reporting their rapid antigen test results was performed. Interventions: Widespread community distribution of rapid antigen tests. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number and proportion of tests logged and reported to the local department of health through the digital assistant. Results: A total of 313000 test kits were distributed, including 178785 test kits that were ordered using the digital assistant. Among all distributed kits, 14398 households (4.6%) used the digital assistant, but beneficiaries reported three-quarters of their rapid antigen test results to their state public health departments (30965 tests reported of 41465 total test results [75.0%]). The reporting behavior varied by community and was significantly higher among communities that were incentivized for reporting test results vs those that were not incentivized or partially incentivized (90.5% [95% CI, 89.9%-91.2%] vs 70.5%; [95% CI, 70.0%-71.0%]). In all communities, positive tests were less frequently reported than negative tests (60.4% [95% CI, 58.1%-62.8%] vs 75.5% [95% CI, 75.1%-76.0%]). Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that application-based reporting with incentives may be associated with increased reporting of rapid tests for COVID-19. However, increasing the adoption of the digital assistant may be a critical first step.

UNC Libraries
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 60%
SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.