% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Rhr:212459,
      author       = {F. Röhr and F. Uellner and A. Deckert and S. Anders and R.
                      Burk and M. Knop$^*$ and L. Brugnara and T. Bärnighausen
                      and A. Jahn and S. McMahon and A. Souares},
      title        = {{F}rom disgusting and complicated to simple and brilliant:
                      {I}mplementation perspectives and lessons learned from users
                      and rejectors of mail-in {SARS}-{C}o{V}-2 gargle tests.},
      journal      = {Frontiers in Public Health},
      volume       = {10},
      issn         = {2296-2565},
      address      = {Lausanne},
      publisher    = {Frontiers Media},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2023-00176},
      pages        = {1024525},
      year         = {2023},
      abstract     = {Despite the important role of testing as a measure against
                      the COVID-19 pandemic, user perspectives on SARS-CoV-2 tests
                      remain scarce, inhibiting an improvement of testing
                      approaches. As the world enters the third year of the
                      pandemic, more nuanced perspectives of testing, and
                      opportunities to expand testing in a feasible and affordable
                      manner merit consideration.Conducted amid the second
                      pandemic wave (late 2020-early 2021) during and after a
                      multi-arm trial evaluating SARS-CoV-2 surveillance
                      strategies in the federal state Baden-Württemberg, Germany,
                      this qualitative sub-study aimed to gain a deeper
                      understanding of how test users and test rejectors perceived
                      mail-in SARS-CoV-2 gargle tests. We conducted 67
                      semi-structured in-depth interviews (mean duration: 60 min)
                      via telephone or video call. Interviews were audio-recorded,
                      transcribed verbatim and analyzed inductively using thematic
                      analysis. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation
                      Research guided the findings' presentation.Respondents
                      generally described gargle sampling as simple and
                      comfortable. However, individual perceptions of the testing
                      method and its feasibility varied widely from disgusting and
                      complicated to simple and brilliant. Self-sampling was
                      appreciated for lowering infection risks during testing, but
                      also considered more complex. Gargle-sampling increased
                      participants' self-efficacy to sample correctly.
                      Communication (first contact, quantity and content of
                      information, reminders, support system) and trust (in the
                      study, its institutional affiliation and test method)
                      decisively influenced the intervention's
                      acceptability.User-driven insights on how to streamline
                      testing include: consider communication, first impressions
                      of tests and information as key for successful mail-in
                      testing; pay attention to the role of mutual trust between
                      those taking and administering tests; implement gargle
                      self-sampling as a pleasant alternative to swab testing;
                      offer multiple test methods to increase test up-take.},
      keywords     = {Humans / SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19: diagnosis / Pandemics /
                      Postal Service / Emotions / COVID-19 (Other) / SARS-CoV-2
                      (Other) / gargle test (Other) / implementation study (Other)
                      / mail-in tests (Other) / self-sampling (Other) / test
                      rejector perspectives (Other) / test user perspectives
                      (Other)},
      cin          = {A260},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)A260-20160331},
      pnm          = {311 - Zellbiologie und Tumorbiologie (POF4-311)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-311},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:36684995},
      pmc          = {pmc:PMC9850099},
      doi          = {10.3389/fpubh.2022.1024525},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/212459},
}