IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v273y2021ics0277953621001106.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public understanding of COVID-19 antibody testing and test results: A qualitative study conducted in the U.K. early in the pandemic

Author

Listed:
  • Lecouturier, Jan
  • Kelly, Michael P.
  • Graham, Fiona
  • Meyer, Carly
  • Tang, Mei Yee
  • Goffe, Louis
  • Bonell, Chris
  • Michie, Susan
  • Sniehotta, Falko F.

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, antibody testing was proposed by several countries as a surveillance tool to monitor the spread of the virus and potentially to ease restrictions. In the UK, antibody testing originally formed the third pillar of the UK Government's COVID-19 testing programme and was thought to offer hope that those with a positive antibody test result could return to normal life. However, at that time scientists and the public had little understanding of the longevity of COVID-19 antibodies, and whether they provided immunity to reinfection or transmission of the virus.

Suggested Citation

  • Lecouturier, Jan & Kelly, Michael P. & Graham, Fiona & Meyer, Carly & Tang, Mei Yee & Goffe, Louis & Bonell, Chris & Michie, Susan & Sniehotta, Falko F., 2021. "Public understanding of COVID-19 antibody testing and test results: A qualitative study conducted in the U.K. early in the pandemic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 273(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:273:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621001106
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113778
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621001106
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113778?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Natalie Kofler & Françoise Baylis, 2020. "Ten reasons why immunity passports are a bad idea," Nature, Nature, vol. 581(7809), pages 379-381, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marta Serra-Garcia & Nora Szech, 2020. "Demand for Covid-19 Antibody Testing, and Why It Should Be Free," CESifo Working Paper Series 8340, CESifo.
    2. Mario Arias-Oliva & Jorge Pelegrín-Borondo & Ala Ali Almahameed & Jorge de Andrés-Sánchez, 2021. "Ethical Attitudes toward COVID-19 Passports: Evidences from Spain," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-18, December.
    3. Iwasaki Masaki, 2022. "Segmentation of Social Norms and Emergence of Social Conflicts Through COVID-19 Laws," Asian Journal of Law and Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 1-36, April.
    4. Mingyu Hu & Hepeng Jia & Yu Xie, 2021. "Passport to a Mighty Nation: Exploring Sociocultural Foundation of Chinese Public’s Attitude to COVID-19 Vaccine Certificates," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-12, October.
    5. Sara Dada & Heather Battles & Caitlin Pilbeam & Bhagteshwar Singh & Tom Solomon & Nina Gobat, 2021. "Learning from the past and present: social science implications for COVID-19 immunity-based documentation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.

    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:eee:socmed:v:273:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621001106. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.