IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0334102.html

Concordance between self-reported SARS-CoV-2 positivity and laboratory-confirmed positivity

Author

Listed:
  • Collin James Catalfamo
  • Elizabeth T Jacobs
  • Laura P Falk
  • Priscilla Lauro
  • Kacey C Ernst
  • Leslie V Farland
  • Kelly M Heslin
  • Kristen Pogreba-Brown
  • Pamela C Garcia-Filion

Abstract

As the use and availability of at-home antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection have increased, the number of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infections that are reported to state COVID-19 surveillance systems have decreased. Self-reported infection dates are critical to accurately track incidence and outbreaks of COVID-19 and for continued research on illness progression; however, the reliability of self-reported infection dates is unknown to date. To assess accuracy of self-reported test dates, we utilized self-reported SARS-CoV-2 testing data from the Arizona CoVHORT Study (CoVHORT) and laboratory-confirmed testing data collected by the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) and calculated the difference in days between dates to examine their percent agreement. We used logistic regression to assess if any participant characteristics were associated with self-reporting a test date >7 days different than the laboratory confirmed date. A total of 1,900 CoVHORT participants aged 18 years or older were included in our analyses. Most participants (82.5%) reported a test date within 7 days of the laboratory confirmed date of their illness. Increasing age and number of weeks between testing positive and self-reporting the test date were both significantly associated with a difference of 7 days or greater between dates. There was an 84% increase (OR=1.84, 95% CI = 1.11–3.06) in likelihood of inaccurately self-reporting their SARS-CoV-2 test date for participants aged 55 years and older and a 2% increase (OR=1.02, 95% CI = 1.02–1.03) for each elapsed week following their SARS-CoV-2 test. We observed an 82% percent agreement (dates within 7 days of each other) between self-reported and laboratory confirmed test dates, suggesting that self-reported SARS-CoV-2 test dates are sufficient for identifying and tracking Long COVID or Post-COVID Conditions when a laboratory-confirmed test date is not available. However, increasing age and greater time between test date and date of self-report were found to decrease the agreement between self-reported and laboratory confirmed test dates.

Suggested Citation

  • Collin James Catalfamo & Elizabeth T Jacobs & Laura P Falk & Priscilla Lauro & Kacey C Ernst & Leslie V Farland & Kelly M Heslin & Kristen Pogreba-Brown & Pamela C Garcia-Filion, 2025. "Concordance between self-reported SARS-CoV-2 positivity and laboratory-confirmed positivity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(10), pages 1-10, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0334102
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0334102
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0334102
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0334102&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0334102?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0334102. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.