20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Willingness to Use Home Collection Methods to Provide Specimens for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 Research: Survey Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Innovative laboratory testing approaches for SARS-CoV-2 infection and immune response are needed to conduct research to establish estimates of prevalence and incidence. Self-specimen collection methods have been successfully used in HIV and sexually transmitted infection research and can provide a feasible opportunity to scale up SARS-CoV-2 testing for research purposes.

          Objective

          The aim of this study was to assess the willingness of adults to use different specimen collection modalities for themselves and children as part of a COVID-19 research study.

          Methods

          Between March 27 and April 1, 2020, we recruited 1435 adults aged 18 years or older though social media advertisements. Participants completed a survey that included 5-point Likert scale items stating how willing they were to use the following specimen collection testing modalities as part of a research study: home collection of a saliva sample, home collection of a throat swab, home finger-prick blood collection, drive-through site throat swab, clinic throat swab, and clinic blood collection. Additionally, participants indicated how the availability of home-based collection methods would impact their willingness to participate compared to drive-through and clinic-based specimen collection. We used Kruskal-Wallis tests and Spearman rank correlations to assess if willingness to use each testing modality differed by demographic variables and characteristics of interest. We compared the overall willingness to use each testing modality and estimated effect sizes with Cohen d.

          Results

          We analyzed responses from 1435 participants with a median age of 40.0 (SD=18.2) years and over half of which were female (761/1435, 53.0%). Most participants agreed or strongly agreed that they would be willing to use specimens self-collected at home to participate in research, including willingness to collect a saliva sample (1259/1435, 87.7%) or a throat swab (1191/1435, 83.1%). Willingness to collect a throat swab sample was lower in both a drive-through setting (64%) and clinic setting (53%). Overall, 69.0% (990/1435) of participants said they would be more likely to participate in a research study if they could provide a saliva sample or throat swab at home compared to going to a drive-through site; only 4.4% (63/1435) of participants said they would be less likely to participate using self-collected samples. For each specimen collection modality, willingness to collect specimens from children for research was lower than willingness to use on oneself, but the ranked order of modalities was similar.

          Conclusions

          Most participants were willing to participate in a COVID-19 research study that involves laboratory testing; however, there was a strong preference for home specimen collection procedures over drive-through or clinic-based testing. To increase participation and minimize bias, epidemiologic research studies of SARS-CoV-2 infection and immune response should consider home specimen collection methods.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          First Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus in the United States

          Summary An outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) that began in Wuhan, China, has spread rapidly, with cases now confirmed in multiple countries. We report the first case of 2019-nCoV infection confirmed in the United States and describe the identification, diagnosis, clinical course, and management of the case, including the patient’s initial mild symptoms at presentation with progression to pneumonia on day 9 of illness. This case highlights the importance of close coordination between clinicians and public health authorities at the local, state, and federal levels, as well as the need for rapid dissemination of clinical information related to the care of patients with this emerging infection.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Self-Collected versus Clinician-Collected Sampling for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea Screening: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

            Background The increases in STI rates since the late 1990s in Canada have occurred despite widespread primary care and targeted public health programs and in the setting of universal health care. More innovative interventions are required that would eliminate barriers to STI testing such as internet-based or mail-in home and community service testing for patients that are hard to reach, who refuse to go for clinician-based testing, or who decline an examination. Jurisdictions such as New Zealand and some American states currently use self-collected sampling, but without the required evidence to determine whether self-collected specimens are as accurate as clinician-collected specimens in terms of chlamydia and gonorrhea diagnostic accuracy. The objective of the review is to compare self-collected vaginal, urine, pharyngeal and rectal samples to our reference standard - clinician-collected cervical, urethral, pharyngeal and rectal sampling techniques to identify a positive specimen using nucleic acid amplification test assays. Methods The hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic and the fixed effect models were used to assess the accuracy of comparable specimens that were collected by patients compared to clinicians. Sensitivity and specificity estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported as our main outcome measures. Findings We included 21 studies based on over 6100 paired samples. Fourteen included studies examined chlamydia only, 6 compared both gonorrhea and chlamydia separately in the same study, and one examined gonorrhea. The six chlamydia studies comparing self-collection by vaginal swab to a clinician-collected cervical swab had the highest sensitivity (92%, 95% CI 87-95) and specificity (98%, 95% CI 97-99), compared to other specimen-types (urine/urethra or urine/cervix). Six studies compared urine self-samples to urethra clinician-collected samples in males and produced a sensitivity of 88% (95% CI 83-93) and a specificity of 99% (95% CI 0.94-0.99). Taking into account that urine samples may be less sensitive than cervical samples, eight chlamydia studies that compared urine self-collected verses clinician-collected cervical samples had a sensitivity of 87% (95% CI 81-91) and high specificity of 99% (95% CI 0.98-1.00). For gonorrhea testing, self-collected urine samples compared to clinician-collected urethra samples in males produced a sensitivity of 92% (95% CI 83-97) and specificity of 99% (95% CI 0.98-1.00). Conclusion The sensitivity and specificity of vaginal self-collected swabs compared to swabs collected by clinicians supports the use of vaginal swab as the recommended specimen of choice in home-based screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea. Urine samples for gonorrhea collected by men had comparably high sensitivity and specificity, so could be recommended as they can be left at room temperature for several days, allowing for the possibility of mail-in home-based testing. In populations that may not go for testing at all, do not have the option of clinical testing, or who refuse a clinical examination, self-collected screening would be a good alternative. We recommend that guidelines on how to self-collect gonorrhea and chlamydia urine, vaginal, rectal and pharyngeal specimens be published.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The Three Steps Needed to End the COVID-19 Pandemic: Bold Public Health Leadership, Rapid Innovations, and Courageous Political Will

              The world is experiencing the expansive spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a global pandemic that is placing strain on health care, economic, and social systems. Commitment to implementing proven public health strategies will require bold public health leadership and courageous acts by politicians. Developing new innovative communication, mitigation, and health care approaches, particularly in the era of social media, is also clearly warranted. We believe that the best public health evidence must inform activities in three priority areas to stop this pandemic: (1) coordinated and consistent stay-at-home orders across multiple jurisdictions, including potential nationwide mandates; (2) rapid scale-up of SARS-CoV-2 testing; and (3) improved health care capacity to respond. This editorial outlines those areas, the rationale behind them, and the call for innovation and engagement of bold public health leadership to empower courageous political action to reduce the number of deaths during this pandemic.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Med Internet Res
                J. Med. Internet Res
                JMIR
                Journal of Medical Internet Research
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                1439-4456
                1438-8871
                September 2020
                3 September 2020
                3 September 2020
                : 22
                : 9
                : e19471
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Epidemiology Rollins School of Public Health Emory University Atlanta, GA United States
                [2 ] Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics School of Public Health Georgia State University Atlanta, GA United States
                [3 ] Department of Behavioral, Social and Health Education Sciences Rollins School of Public Health Emory University Atlanta, GA United States
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Aaron J Siegler asiegle@ 123456emory.edu
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0244-7458
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4466-7141
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3245-0175
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4467-8772
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7728-0587
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1133-4762
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7667-4197
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5553-7540
                Article
                v22i9e19471
                10.2196/19471
                7473702
                32790639
                199d65c2-22d6-4d1d-9e95-9308d8614ff3
                ©Eric William Hall, Nicole Luisi, Maria Zlotorzynska, Gretchen Wilde, Patrick Sullivan, Travis Sanchez, Heather Bradley, Aaron J Siegler. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 03.09.2020.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 19 April 2020
                : 20 June 2020
                : 1 July 2020
                : 11 August 2020
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Original Paper

                Medicine
                covid-19,sars-cov-2,specimen collection,survey,research,public health,infectious disease,virus,test
                Medicine
                covid-19, sars-cov-2, specimen collection, survey, research, public health, infectious disease, virus, test

                Comments

                Comment on this article