Organisations that ask people to self-test have used five methods to establish whether the test took place. This page compares them in terms of process, documentation, resource requirements and limitations.
1. Self-reported testing
Process: The participant reports a negative result, on a form or in an app. This method has been used by schools across Europe with parent declarations and by national "report your result" schemes. Documentation: no independent verification record. Resource requirements: no cost and no staff. Limitations: false declarations have been documented.
2. Photo submission
Process: The participant uploads a photograph of the test strip. This method has been used by Ireland's health service for staff leave and by Italian regions on the health record. Documentation: a photograph showing that a negative strip exists. Resource requirements: an upload form and staff to review the photographs. Limitations: the photograph does not independently establish the identity of the participant or the time of testing.
3. Live video proctoring
Process: A trained person observes the test over video. This method was used by travel-testing services in 2021–22. Documentation: the procedure and, usually, identity. Resource requirements: proctor time per test, typically 15–30 minutes, and scheduling. Limitations: costs increase with every test, waiting times can occur, and the method is not practical for daily screening.
4. In-person testing
Process: The participant is tested at a site by staff. This method is used by workplaces, testing centres and pharmacies. Documentation: complete documentation of the test. Resource requirements: staff, a room, kits and travel time. Limitations: requires attendance at a designated testing location and may involve higher staffing and facility costs.
5. Verified at-home testing (screenme.science)
Process: The participant tests at home on camera; software verifies the procedure, ties the screening to the invited participant and issues a record. This is the approach used by screenme.science. Documentation: who tested, how, and when. Resource requirements: a cost per test that is a fraction of proctoring, and no staff per test. Limitations: requires a smartphone.
Comparison table
| Self-report | Photo | Live proctor | In person | screenme.science | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cost per test | none | low | high | highest | low |
| Staff per test | none | minutes | 15–30 min | 10+ min | none |
| Tied to a named person | no | no | yes | yes | yes |
| Procedure verified | no | no | yes | yes | yes |
| Documentation retained | no | photo | sometimes | record | certificate |
| Scales to daily screening | yes | partly | no | no | yes |
Frequently asked questions
Is photo submission ever enough?
For low-stakes internal use, perhaps; it cannot prove who tested or when.
When is in-person testing still right?
When a clinical protocol requires professional sampling or confirmatory testing.
Can screenme.science replace live proctoring?
For routine screening, yes; proctoring remains an option where a human witness is legally required.