Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 17, 2026
Swabbing the Urban Environment - A Pipeline for Sampling and Detection of SARS-CoV-2 From Environmental Reservoirs
Published on: April 9, 2021
Evaluation of a novel university-based testing platform to increase access to SARS-CoV-2 testing during the COVID-19
Julia Catherine Bennett1, Jessica O'Hanlon2, Zachary Acker3
1Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA jubenn94@uw.edu.
Objective:
We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and utility of an unsupervised testing mechanism, in which participants pick up a swab kit, self-test (unsupervised) and return the kit to an on-campus drop box, as compared with supervised self-testing at staffed locations.
Design:
University SARS-CoV-2 testing cohort.
Setting:
Husky Coronavirus Testing provided voluntary SARS-CoV-2 testing at a university in Seattle, USA.
Outcome Measures:
We computed descriptive statistics to describe the characteristics of the study sample. Adjusted logistic regression implemented via generalised estimating equations was used to estimate the odds of a self-swab being conducted through unsupervised versus supervised testing mechanisms by participant characteristics, including year of study enrolment, pre-Omicron versus post-Omicron time period, age, sex, race, ethnicity, affiliation and symptom status.
Results:
From September 2021 to July 2022, we received 92 499 supervised and 26 800 unsupervised self-swabs. Among swabs received by the laboratory, the overall error rate for supervised versus unsupervised swabs was 0.3% vs 4%, although this declined to 2% for unsupervised swabs by the spring of the academic year. Results were returned for 92 407 supervised (5% positive) and 25 836 unsupervised (4%) swabs from 26 359 participants. The majority were students (79%), 61% were female and most identified as white (49%) or Asian (34%). The use of unsupervised testing increased during the Omicron wave when testing demand was high and stayed constant in spring 2022 even when testing demand fell. We estimated the odds of using unsupervised versus supervised testing to be significantly greater among those <25 years of age (p<0.001), for Hispanic versus non-Hispanic individuals (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.3, p=0.01) and lower among individuals symptomatic versus asymptomatic or presymptomatic (0.9, 95% CI 0.8 to 0.9, p<0.001).
Conclusions:
Unsupervised swab collection permitted increased testing when demand was high, allowed for access to a broader proportion of the university community and was not associated with a substantial increase in testing errors.
