Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35562817›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2022

Public acceptability of a technology-mediated stool sample collection platform to inform community-based surveillance of infectious intestinal disease: a pilot study.

Rowan Davies, Miren Iturriza-Gómara, Rebecca Glennon-Alty, Alex J Elliot, Roberto Vivancos, Anica Alvarez Nishio, Nigel A Cunliffe, Daniel Hungerford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Rowan DaviesNational Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infections, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Miren Iturriza-GómaraCentre for Vaccine Innovation and Access, PATH, Geneva, Switzerland.
Rebecca Glennon-AltyDepartment of Clinical Infection, Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Infection, Veterinary & Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Alex J ElliotNational Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infections, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Roberto VivancosNational Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infections, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Anica Alvarez NishioPatient and Public Involvement Representative, London, UK.
Nigel A CunliffeNational Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infections, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Daniel HungerfordNational Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infections, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. d.hungerford@liverpool.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the UK approximately a quarter of the population experience infectious intestinal disease (IID) each year. However, only 2% present to primary care, preventing a true determination of community burden and pathogen aetiology. The aim of this pilot study was to gauge public acceptability of a technology-mediated platform for reporting episodes of IID and for providing stool samples.

methodsThis study employed a cross-sectional online survey design, targeting individuals 16 + years old within Liverpool City Region, UK. Information sought included demographics, comfortability of reporting illness and IID symptoms, willingness to provide stool, and favoured stool-provision method. Univariable logistic regression was used to examine associations between demographic variables and providing a stool sample. Odds ratios (OR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were produced.

resultsA total of 174 eligible participants completed the survey, with 69% female. The sample was skewed towards younger populations, with 2.9% aged 65 + years. Nearly a third (29%) had a household income of less than £30,000 per annum and 70% had attained a degree or higher. The majority identified as White British (81%) and 11% identified as ethnicities typically grouped Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME). Three quarters of participants were either 'Comfortable' or 'Very Comfortable' with reporting illness (75%) and with answering symptom-related questions (79%); 78% reported that they would provide a stool sample. Upon univariable analysis, increasing age - being 55 + (OR 6.28, 95% CI 1.15-117.48), and lower income (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.02-6.60), was associated with willingness to provide a stool sample. Additionally, respondents identifying as BAME ethnicities and men may be less inclined to provide a stool sample.

conclusionsThis pilot study assessed the acceptability of technology-mediated platforms for reporting IID and provision of stool samples in the community. Respondents were biased towards younger, technologically inclined, more affluent and educated populations. Acceptability for reporting illness and providing a stool sample through technology-mediated platforms was high. While older populations were under-represented, they were more likely to agree to provide a stool sample. Qualitative research is required to better reach older and more deprived populations, and to understand potential age, gender and ethnic differences in compliance with stool sampling.

Indexed as

Intestinal DiseasesSpecimen HandlingAdolescentCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMalePilot ProjectsTechnologyApplicationCommunityDiarrhoea and vomitingGastrointestinal diseasePatient and public engagementSelf-reportingSmartphoneSurveillanceSurveyTelehealth

Identifiers

PMID35562817
PMCPMC9099322

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.