ArticlePloS one2021
Patient attitudes towards faecal sampling for gut microbiome studies and clinical care reveal positive engagement and room for improvement.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review: non-endoscopic surveillance for colorectal neoplasia in individuals with Lynch syndrome.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- Feasibility and Compliance of Stool Collection for Future Microbiome-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening: Preliminary Findings from a Prospective Multicenter FIT-Positive Cohort.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Translational human gut microbiome research: What are the missing pieces of the puzzle?Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Acromegaly and colorectal cancer risk: emerging roles of the gut microbiota.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Article
- Pharmacomicrobiomics.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Review
- Operational determinants of recruitment and biospecimen collection in translational observational studies: a multi-site comparative analysis.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a birth cohort study during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Perceived usability, acceptability, and feasibility of stool-based qPCR TB diagnostics: perspectives from healthcare providers in Manhiça District, southern Mozambique.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Circulating Exosomal Proteins as New Diagnostic Biomarkers for Colorectal Cancer (EXOSCOL01): A Pilot Case-Controlled Study Focusing on MMP14 Potential.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2025Article
- Standards for Collection, Preservation, and Transportation of Fecal Samples in TCM Clinical Trials.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Faecal sample collection is crucial for gut microbiome research and its clinical applications. However, while patients and healthy volunteers are routinely asked to provide stool samples, their attitudes towards sampling remain largely unknown. Here, we investigate the attitudes of 780 Dutch patients, including participants in a large Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) gut microbiome cohort and population controls, in order to identify barriers to sample collection and provide recommendations for gut microbiome researchers and clinicians. We sent questionnaires to 660 IBD patients and 112 patients with other disorders who had previously been approached to participate in gut microbiome studies. We also conducted 478 brief interviews with participants in our general population cohort who had collected stool samples. Statistical analysis of the data was performed using R. 97.4% of respondents reported that they had willingly participated in stool sample collection for gut microbiome research, and most respondents (82.9%) and interviewees (95.6%) indicated willingness to participate again, with their motivations for participating being mainly altruistic (57.0%). Responses indicated that storing stool samples in the home freezer for a prolonged time was the main barrier to participation (52.6%), but clear explanations of the sampling procedures and their purpose increased participant willingness to collect and freeze samples (P = 0.046, P = 0.003). To account for participant concerns, gut microbiome researchers establishing cohorts and clinicians trying new faecal tests should provide clear instructions, explain the rationale behind their protocol, consider providing a small freezer and inform patients about study outcomes. By assessing the attitudes, motives and barriers surrounding participation in faecal sample collection, we provide important information that will contribute to the success of gut microbiome research and its near-future clinical applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.