3.8 Article

Is self-testing the next paradigm for diagnostics?

期刊

BIOINFORMATION
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 278-283

出版社

BIOMEDICAL INFORMATICS
DOI: 10.6026/97320630019278

关键词

Usability assessment; AI powered Mylab CoviselfTM application; age and gender; Ease of testing process; Mylab CoviSelfTM- COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Self-Test Kit

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluates the usability and attitude of users towards India's first approved rapid antigen self-test kit, CoviSelfTM. The results show that over 90% of participants followed the test procedure correctly, and there was no significant difference in usability based on age and gender. The findings suggest that self-testing could revolutionize diagnostics, providing access to testing for various diseases to millions of people who lack manpower or facilities.
The study estimates the usability and attitude assessment of users for India's first approved rapid antigen self-test kit; the CoviSelfTM. India approved its first AI-powered self-test for Covid-19 in April 2021 a few weeks after the first approval in the US. We present here a study on usability and attitude assessment of users of India's first approved rapid antigen self-test kit; the CoviSelfTM. The study evaluates participants' understanding of and performance of test procedure and interprets the results. Analysis revealed that more than 90% study participants followed steps correctly as illustrated in the user's manual. Age group and gender-based analysis showed comparable scores for usability of the test kit suggesting users of different age groups has same ease in using the test kit. What we learnt from this study could be start of self-test revolution, where rapid tests could expand the access of diagnostics for hundreds of diseases including HIV, HPV, and dengue to millions of people who could not get access to diagnostics because we lacked manpower or facility to conduct tests. Self-testing could break the barriers for diagnostics that Internet did for information.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据