Effect of testing criteria for infectious disease surveillance: The case of COVID-19 in Norway.

Solveig Engebretsen, Magne Aldrin
Author Information
  1. Solveig Engebretsen: SAMBA, Norwegian Computing Center, Oslo, Norway. ORCID
  2. Magne Aldrin: SAMBA, Norwegian Computing Center, Oslo, Norway.

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway, the testing criteria and capacity changed numerous times. In this study, we aim to assess consequences of changes in testing criteria for infectious disease surveillance. We plotted the proportion of positive PCR tests and the total number of PCR tests for different periods of the pandemic in Norway. We fitted regression models for the total number of PCR tests and the probability of positive PCR tests, with time and weekday as explanatory variables. The regression analysis focuses on the time period until 2021, i.e. before Norway started vaccination. There were clear changes in testing criteria and capacity over time. In particular, there was a marked difference in the testing regime before and after the introduction of self-testing, with a drastic increase in the proportion of positive PCR tests after the introduction of self-tests. The probability of a PCR test being positive was higher for weekends and public holidays than for Mondays-Fridays. The probability for a positive PCR test was lowest on Mondays. This implies that there were different testing criteria and/or different test-seeking behaviour on different weekdays. Though the probability of testing positive clearly changed over time, we cannot in general conclude that this occurred as a direct consequence of changes in testing policies. It is natural for the testing criteria to change during a pandemic. Though smaller changes in testing criteria do not seem to have large, abrupt consequences for the disease surveillance, larger changes like the introduction and massive use of self-tests makes the test data less useful for surveillance.

References

  1. PLoS One. 2021 Feb 11;16(2):e0246715 [PMID: 33571273]
  2. BMC Public Health. 2023 Sep 4;23(1):1714 [PMID: 37667223]
  3. Nat Commun. 2021 Aug 27;12(1):5173 [PMID: 34453047]
  4. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2001 Jul 27;50(RR-13):1-35; quiz CE1-7 [PMID: 18634202]
  5. Am J Epidemiol. 2021 Sep 1;190(9):1908-1917 [PMID: 33831148]
  6. Infect Dis Model. 2021;6:930-941 [PMID: 34316526]
  7. Int J Equity Health. 2022 Nov 23;21(Suppl 3):167 [PMID: 36419127]
  8. J Water Health. 2022 Aug;20(8):1223-1242 [PMID: 36044191]
  9. Emerg Infect Dis. 2022 Jul;28(7):1345-1354 [PMID: 35580960]
  10. PLoS Comput Biol. 2020 Dec 3;16(12):e1008274 [PMID: 33270633]
  11. Euro Surveill. 2023 Apr;28(17): [PMID: 37103789]
  12. PLoS Comput Biol. 2023 Jan 23;19(1):e1010860 [PMID: 36689468]
  13. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2020 Dec 11;140(18): [PMID: 33322882]
  14. Stat Methods Med Res. 1995 Sep;4(3):187-96 [PMID: 8548102]
  15. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2023 Dec 13;187(2):436-453 [PMID: 38617598]

MeSH Term

Humans
COVID-19
Norway
SARS-CoV-2
Pandemics
COVID-19 Testing
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0testingcriteriaPCRpositivechangestestsNorwaydifferentprobabilitytimepandemicdiseasesurveillanceintroductiontestCOVID-19capacitychangedconsequencesinfectiousproportiontotalnumberregressionself-testsThoughnumeroustimesstudyaimassessplottedperiodsfittedmodelsweekdayexplanatoryvariablesanalysisfocusesperiod2021iestartedvaccinationclearparticularmarkeddifferenceregimeself-testingdrasticincreasehigherweekendspublicholidaysMondays-FridayslowestMondaysimpliesand/ortest-seekingbehaviourweekdaysclearlygeneralconcludeoccurreddirectconsequencepoliciesnaturalchangesmallerseemlargeabruptlargerlikemassiveusemakesdatalessusefulEffectsurveillance:case

Similar Articles

Cited By