Agreement Between Self‐Reported COVID‐19 and Dried Blood Spot Serology: A Cross‐Sectional Study

Background and Aims: Identifying COVID-19 cases with high accuracy is essential for epidemiological research on the pandemic's health effects. We aimed to investigate the agreement between a validated self-report questionnaire for COVID-19 and dried blood spot serology for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of combined survey and SARS-CoV-2 antibody data. Between June and October 2023, 311 adults completed a validated self-report COVID-19 questionnaire and provided fingertip blood samples, which underwent Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay to quantify IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N)-proteins. We applied several statistical approaches to assess agreement: Cohen's κ of inter-rater reliability; positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values; and logistic and linear regressions of the year of most recent self-reported COVID-19 on serostatus and N-protein antibody concentrations. Results: Two-thirds (203, 65%) of participants self-reported a history of COVID-19 whereas one-third (98, 32%) were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 N-protein antibodies, reflecting only "fair" agreement (κ = 0.23 [95% CI 0.15-0.31]). Self-reported COVID-19 had a PPV of 41% and an NPV of 87% for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. PPV was low for those whose most recent self-reported cases were in 2020-21 (36%) and 2022 (33%), but higher for 2023 (75%). Compared to participants with no self-reported history of COVID-19, those reporting SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2023 had 23 times greater odds of being seropositive (95% CI: 9.18-62.5) and had 1078% (617-1836%) higher N-protein concentrations, after adjustment for confounders. Conclusion: While overall agreement self-reported COVID-19 and serostatus is only fair, there was a strong relationship exhibited between the two for recent self-reported cases, when serology is most accurate. This suggests that self-reported COVID-19 is reasonably accurate for identifying people who have previously had COVID-19 as well as determining roughly when infections occurred.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Health Science Reports
Published
2026-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.72267
Primary Topic
COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Agreement Between Self‐Reported COVID‐19 and Dried Blood Spot Serology: A Cross‐Sectional Study

Nicola Sheppard, Karen E Walker-Bone, Paul V. Licciardi, Catherine L. Smith et al.
Health Science Reports
COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
article

Agreement Between Self‐Reported COVID‐19 and Dried Blood Spot Serology: A Cross‐Sectional Study

Nicola Sheppard, Karen E Walker-Bone, Paul V. Licciardi, Catherine L. Smith, Matthew Carroll, Michael John Abramson, Jillian Ikin, Tyler Lane, Brigitte M. Borg, Zheng Quan Toh
article en

Abstract

Background and Aims: Identifying COVID-19 cases with high accuracy is essential for epidemiological research on the pandemic's health effects. We aimed to investigate the agreement between a validated self-report questionnaire for COVID-19 and dried blood spot serology for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of combined survey and SARS-CoV-2 antibody data. Between June and October 2023, 311 adults completed a validated self-report COVID-19 questionnaire and provided fingertip blood samples, which underwent Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay to quantify IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N)-proteins. We applied several statistical approaches to assess agreement: Cohen's κ of inter-rater reliability; positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values; and logistic and linear regressions of the year of most recent self-reported COVID-19 on serostatus and N-protein antibody concentrations. Results: Two-thirds (203, 65%) of participants self-reported a history of COVID-19 whereas one-third (98, 32%) were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 N-protein antibodies, reflecting only "fair" agreement (κ = 0.23 [95% CI 0.15-0.31]). Self-reported COVID-19 had a PPV of 41% and an NPV of 87% for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. PPV was low for those whose most recent self-reported cases were in 2020-21 (36%) and 2022 (33%), but higher for 2023 (75%). Compared to participants with no self-reported history of COVID-19, those reporting SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2023 had 23 times greater odds of being seropositive (95% CI: 9.18-62.5) and had 1078% (617-1836%) higher N-protein concentrations, after adjustment for confounders. Conclusion: While overall agreement self-reported COVID-19 and serostatus is only fair, there was a strong relationship exhibited between the two for recent self-reported cases, when serology is most accurate. This suggests that self-reported COVID-19 is reasonably accurate for identifying people who have previously had COVID-19 as well as determining roughly when infections occurred.

Health Science ReportsVol. 9(4)
The University of Melbourne (AU), Monash Health (AU), Murdoch Children's Research Institute (AU), Alfred Health (AU), Monash University (AU)
Monash University, Department of Health, State Government of Victoria
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 24%
COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
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.