tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Pediatrics
. 2023 Jul 1;152(Suppl 1):e2022060352F.
doi: 10.1542/peds.2022-060352F. At-Home Versus Onsite COVID-19 School-based Testing: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial
Susan M Kiene[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Corinne McDaniels-Davidson[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Chii-Dean Lin[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Tasi Rodriguez[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Nicole Chris[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Rebecca Bravo[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Vernon Moore[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Tom Snyder[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Marisela Arechiga-Romero[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Lynnette Famania-Martinez[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Jennifer Carbuccia[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Rachel Pinuelas-Morineau[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Eyal Oren[SUP] 1 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Objectives: Equitable access to coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) screening is important to reduce transmission and maintain in-person learning for middle school communities, particularly in disadvantaged schools. Rapid antigen testing, and at-home testing in particular, could offer substantial advantages over onsite testing from a school district's perspective, but it is unknown if engagement in at-home testing can be initiated and sustained. We hypothesized that an at-home COVID-19 school testing program would be noninferior to an onsite school COVID-19 testing program with regard to school participation rates and adherence to a weekly screening testing schedule.
Methods: We enrolled 3 middle schools within a large, predominantly Latinx-serving, independent school district into a noninferiority trial from October 2021 to March 2022. Two schools were randomized to onsite and 1 school to at-home COVID-19 testing programs. All students and staff were eligible to participate.
Results: Over the 21-week trial, at-home weekly screening testing participation rates were not inferior to onsite testing. Similarly, adherence to the weekly testing schedule was not inferior in the at-home arm. Participants in the at-home testing arm were able to test more consistently during and before returning from school breaks than those in the onsite arm.
Conclusions: Results support the noninferiority of at-home testing versus onsite testing both in terms of participation in testing and adherence to weekly testing. Implementation of at-home COVID-19 screening testing should be part of schools' routine COVID-19 prevention efforts nationwide; however, adequate support is essential to ensure participation and persistence in regular at-home testing.
. 2023 Jul 1;152(Suppl 1):e2022060352F.
doi: 10.1542/peds.2022-060352F. At-Home Versus Onsite COVID-19 School-based Testing: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial
Susan M Kiene[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Corinne McDaniels-Davidson[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Chii-Dean Lin[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Tasi Rodriguez[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Nicole Chris[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Rebecca Bravo[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Vernon Moore[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Tom Snyder[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Marisela Arechiga-Romero[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Lynnette Famania-Martinez[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Jennifer Carbuccia[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Rachel Pinuelas-Morineau[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Eyal Oren[SUP] 1 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 37394511
- PMCID: PMC10312284
- DOI: 10.1542/peds.2022-060352F
Objectives: Equitable access to coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) screening is important to reduce transmission and maintain in-person learning for middle school communities, particularly in disadvantaged schools. Rapid antigen testing, and at-home testing in particular, could offer substantial advantages over onsite testing from a school district's perspective, but it is unknown if engagement in at-home testing can be initiated and sustained. We hypothesized that an at-home COVID-19 school testing program would be noninferior to an onsite school COVID-19 testing program with regard to school participation rates and adherence to a weekly screening testing schedule.
Methods: We enrolled 3 middle schools within a large, predominantly Latinx-serving, independent school district into a noninferiority trial from October 2021 to March 2022. Two schools were randomized to onsite and 1 school to at-home COVID-19 testing programs. All students and staff were eligible to participate.
Results: Over the 21-week trial, at-home weekly screening testing participation rates were not inferior to onsite testing. Similarly, adherence to the weekly testing schedule was not inferior in the at-home arm. Participants in the at-home testing arm were able to test more consistently during and before returning from school breaks than those in the onsite arm.
Conclusions: Results support the noninferiority of at-home testing versus onsite testing both in terms of participation in testing and adherence to weekly testing. Implementation of at-home COVID-19 screening testing should be part of schools' routine COVID-19 prevention efforts nationwide; however, adequate support is essential to ensure participation and persistence in regular at-home testing.