Intended for healthcare professionals

Editorials

Covid-19 mass testing programmes

BMJ 2020; 370 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3262 (Published 20 August 2020) Cite this as: BMJ 2020;370:m3262

Read our latest coverage of the coronavirus outbreak

  1. Angela E Raffle, consultant in public health1,
  2. Allyson M Pollock, clinical professor of public health2,
  3. Louisa Harding-Edgar, academic fellow in general practice3
  1. 1University of Bristol School of Community and Social Medicine, Bristol, UK
  2. 2Institute of Population Health Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
  3. 3Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
  1. Correspondence to: A E Raffle angela.raffle{at}bristol.ac.uk

Should be modelled on successful screening programmes

Mass testing programmes for covid-19 should be drawing on the UK’s considerable track record in delivering high quality screening programmes for communicable and non-communicable disease.1234 Testing of people with no signs or symptoms has important differences from testing that aims to reach a diagnosis when someone has sought help for a problem. In diagnostic testing, the clinician-patient relationship usually affords a degree of judgment and safety. The clinician knows the person, gives explanation and advice, explains the limitations of tests, and obtains implicit or explicit consent.

For tests performed outside this context—such as screening, surveillance, or case finding—these safeguards are missing and the pitfalls are numerous. The aim is risk reduction, with a constant need to balance benefit, harm, and affordability. The common feature is the offer or mandate of tests for a population or group.5 Uses are numerous and include epidemiological research, communicable disease control, protection of others (such as criminal record checks for workers), commercial gain (such as direct-to-consumer genetic tests), and reducing health risks as in the 11 national screening programmes …

View Full Text