Understanding COVID-19 testing behaviour in England through a sociodemographic lens
Authors: Bajaj Sumali , Chen Siyu , Creswell Richard , Naidoo Reshania , Tsui Joseph L.-H. , Kolade Olumide , Nicholson George , Lehmann Brieuc , Hay James A , Kraemer Moritz U. G. , Aguas Ricardo , Donnelly Christl A. , Fowler Tom , Hopkins Susan , Cantrell Liberty , Dahal Prabin , White Lisa J. , Stepniewska Kasia , Voysey Merryn , Lambert Ben ,   the EY-Oxford Health Analytics Consortium
Published: October 2023

Background

Understanding underlying mechanisms of heterogeneity in test-seeking and reporting behaviour can help to protect the vulnerable and guide equity-driven interventions. Using COVID-19 testing data for England and data from community prevalence surveillance surveys (REACT-1 and ONS-CIS) from October 2020 to March 2022, we investigated the relationship between sociodemographic factors and testing behaviours in England.

Methods

We used mass testing data for lateral flow device (LFD; data for 290 million tests performed and reported) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (data for 107 million tests performed and returned from the laboratory) tests made available for the general public, provided by date, self-reported age and ethnicity at lower tier local authority (LTLA) level. Using a mechanistic causal model to debias the PCR testing data, we obtained estimates of weekly SARS-CoV-2 prevalence by self-reported ethnic groups and age groups for LTLAs in England. This approach to debiasing the PCR (or LFD) testing data also estimated a testing bias parameter defined as the odds of testing in infected versus not infected individuals, which would be close to zero if the likelihood of test seeking (or seeking and reporting) was the same regardless of infection status. Using confirmatory PCR data, we estimated false positivity rates, sensitivity, specificity, and the rate of decline in detection probability by PCR by sociodemographic groups. We also estimated the daily incidence allowing us to determine the fraction of cases captured by the testing programme.

Findings

From March 2021 onwards, individuals in the most deprived regions reported approximately half as many LFD tests per-capita than those in the least deprived areas (Median ratio [Inter quartile range, IQR]: 0·50 [0·44, 0·54]). During October 2020 – June 2021, PCR testing patterns were in the opposite direction (Median ratio [IQR]: 1·8 [1·7, 1·9]). Infection prevalences in Asian or Asian British communities were considerably higher than those of other ethnic groups during the Alpha and Omicron BA.1 waves. Our estimates indicate that the England COVID-19 testing program detected 26% - 40% of all cases (including asymptomatic cases) over the study period with no consistent differences by deprivation levels or ethnic groups.

PCR testing biases were generally higher than for LFDs, which was in line with the general policy of symptomatic and asymptomatic use of these tests. During the invasion phases of the Delta and Omicron variants of concern, the PCR testing bias in the most deprived populations was roughly double (ratio: 2·2 and 2·7 respectively) that in the least. We also determined that ethnic minorities and older individuals were less likely to use confirmatory PCR tests through most of the pandemic and that there was possibly a longer delay in reporting a positive LFD test in the Black populations.

Interpretation

Differences in testing behaviours across sociodemographic groups may be reflective of the relatively higher costs of self-isolation to vulnerable populations, differences in test accessibility, digital literacy, and differing perception about the utility of tests and risks posed by infection. Our work shows how mass testing data can be used in conjunction with surveillance surveys to identify gaps in the uptake of public health interventions at fine scale levels and by sociodemographic groups. It provides a framework for monitoring local interventions and yields valuable lessons for policy makers in ensuring an equitable response to future pandemics.

Funding

UK Health Security Agency.