Feasibility of self-organized blood sample collection in adults for study purposes in a primary care setting.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
19
10
2022
accepted:
05
05
2023
medline:
29
5
2023
pubmed:
25
5
2023
entrez:
25
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The COVID-19 pandemic situation poses new challenges for research. Ethical issues might arise if especially vulnerable individuals for severe COVID-19 course expose themselves because of participation in studies to a higher risk of infection for study purposes. How is the feasibility and acceptance of self-organized blood sample collections to measure anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG antibodies in persons with a high risk for a severe COVID-19 disease progression? Persons with a high risk for a severe COVID-19 disease progression (immunocompromised, oncology patients or over 80 years old) were recruited between January and September 2021 to send in blood samples (at least 500 μl) 1 month and 6 months after second COVID-19 vaccination. Participants were given the choice of drawing capillary or venous blood themselves or having blood drawn by health professionals belonging to either the study's own research team or the personnel found in local practices or clinics. Participants were surveyed via a telephone interview in December 2021 and January 2022 about their choice of blood sampling methods and influence of blood collection choice upon study participation. Data from 360 participants was collected via telephone follow-up. First blood samples were collected by the participants themselves (35.8%), local practices or clinics (31.9%) and the research team (22.5%). Second blood samples were mostly collected in local practices or clinics (35.6%) followed by participants themselves (25.9%) and the research team (11.5%). Blood samples were not collected in 2.5% and 19.1% of persons during first and second blood draw, respectively. Only 2% of blood samples did not reach the laboratory or were not analyzable. About one-fourth (26%) of participants stated that they would not have participated in the study if it would have been required to travel to the university hospital to give their blood sample. Participants were able to self-organize blood collection, making use of several different blood sample methods. Nearly all blood samples were analyzable when self-collected and sent in by post. One-fourth of the participants would not have participated in the study if required to give their blood sample in the study location. German Clinical Trial Registry, DRKS00021152.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/AIMS
The COVID-19 pandemic situation poses new challenges for research. Ethical issues might arise if especially vulnerable individuals for severe COVID-19 course expose themselves because of participation in studies to a higher risk of infection for study purposes. How is the feasibility and acceptance of self-organized blood sample collections to measure anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG antibodies in persons with a high risk for a severe COVID-19 disease progression?
METHODS
Persons with a high risk for a severe COVID-19 disease progression (immunocompromised, oncology patients or over 80 years old) were recruited between January and September 2021 to send in blood samples (at least 500 μl) 1 month and 6 months after second COVID-19 vaccination. Participants were given the choice of drawing capillary or venous blood themselves or having blood drawn by health professionals belonging to either the study's own research team or the personnel found in local practices or clinics. Participants were surveyed via a telephone interview in December 2021 and January 2022 about their choice of blood sampling methods and influence of blood collection choice upon study participation.
RESULTS
Data from 360 participants was collected via telephone follow-up. First blood samples were collected by the participants themselves (35.8%), local practices or clinics (31.9%) and the research team (22.5%). Second blood samples were mostly collected in local practices or clinics (35.6%) followed by participants themselves (25.9%) and the research team (11.5%). Blood samples were not collected in 2.5% and 19.1% of persons during first and second blood draw, respectively. Only 2% of blood samples did not reach the laboratory or were not analyzable. About one-fourth (26%) of participants stated that they would not have participated in the study if it would have been required to travel to the university hospital to give their blood sample.
CONCLUSIONS
Participants were able to self-organize blood collection, making use of several different blood sample methods. Nearly all blood samples were analyzable when self-collected and sent in by post. One-fourth of the participants would not have participated in the study if required to give their blood sample in the study location.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
German Clinical Trial Registry, DRKS00021152.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37228048
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286014
pii: PONE-D-22-28891
pmc: PMC10212115
doi:
Substances chimiques
COVID-19 Vaccines
0
Antibodies, Viral
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0286014Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Schröder et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Curr Med Res Pract. 2020 Mar-Apr;10(2):78-79
pubmed: 32292804
BMJ Open. 2022 Jul 18;12(7):e056370
pubmed: 35851013
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Jan 26;118(4):
pubmed: 33414277
Int J Cancer. 2022 Mar 1;150(5):782-794
pubmed: 34655476
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2021 Oct 15;31(3):030501
pubmed: 34658642
Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2021 Aug 18;:
pubmed: 34406494
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Sep 3;22(9):e19471
pubmed: 32790639
Nat Microbiol. 2022 Mar;7(3):423-433
pubmed: 35132197
Sci Rep. 2021 Apr 8;11(1):7754
pubmed: 33833246
Ann Clin Biochem. 2021 Sep;58(5):411-421
pubmed: 33715443
BMJ. 2021 Nov 17;375:e068302
pubmed: 34789505
PLoS One. 2021 Aug 3;16(8):e0255524
pubmed: 34343222
Syst Rev. 2021 May 26;10(1):155
pubmed: 34039423
Nepal J Epidemiol. 2020 Sep 30;10(3):878-887
pubmed: 33042591
PLoS One. 2021 Sep 2;16(9):e0255841
pubmed: 34473717
PLoS One. 2022 Aug 11;17(8):e0272874
pubmed: 35951611
Postgrad Med. 2020 Apr;132(3):288-295
pubmed: 32027205
BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Dec 2;22(1):1470
pubmed: 36461025
PLoS One. 2021 Jun 23;16(6):e0252617
pubmed: 34161316
PLoS One. 2022 Mar 23;17(3):e0263627
pubmed: 35320286
Front Immunol. 2021 Mar 15;12:614436
pubmed: 33790892
BMC Public Health. 2020 Nov 19;20(1):1742
pubmed: 33213391
BMC Infect Dis. 2022 Apr 25;22(1):403
pubmed: 35468758