Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32790639›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020

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

Eric William Hall, Nicole Luisi, Maria Zlotorzynska, Gretchen Wilde, Patrick Sullivan, Travis Sanchez, Heather Bradley, Aaron J Siegler

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eric William HallDepartment of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0244-7458
Nicole LuisiDepartment of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4466-7141
Maria ZlotorzynskaDepartment of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3245-0175
Gretchen WildeDepartment of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4467-8772
Patrick SullivanDepartment of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7728-0587
Travis SanchezDepartment of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1133-4762
Heather BradleyDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7667-4197
Aaron J SieglerDepartment of Behavioral, Social and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5553-7540
Emory University · USGeorgia State University · US

Funding

Virology and Molecular Biomarkers CoreP30AI050409 · NIAID · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI Carlos del Rio · 2002 to 2026
$74.0M
Population-based survey of SARS-CoV-2 infection and immune responseR01AI143875 · NIAID · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI SIEGLER, AARON JULIUS, SULLIVAN, PATRICK SEAN · 2019 to 2023
$9.2M
NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI050409NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI143875
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInnovative 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.

objectiveThe 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.

methodsBetween 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.

resultsWe 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.

conclusionsMost 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.

Indexed as

AdultBetacoronavirusClinical Laboratory TechniquesCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingFemaleHumansMalePandemicsPneumonia, ViralSARS-CoV-2Specimen HandlingSurveys and QuestionnairesCOVID-19infectious diseasepublic healthresearchSARS-CoV-2specimen collectionsurveytestvirus

Identifiers

PMID32790639
PMCPMC7473702
OpenAlexW3048781684

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.