ArticlePloS one2023
Participant perceptions and experiences of a novel community-based respiratory longitudinal sampling method in Liverpool, UK: A mixed methods feasibility study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acceptability of self-sampling and self-testing for infections: a rapid systematic review on public users' views.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Assessing the use of minimally invasive self-sampling at home for long-term monitoring of the microbiota within UK families.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Longitudinal, community-based sampling is important for understanding prevalence and transmission of respiratory pathogens. Using a minimally invasive sampling method, the FAMILY Micro study monitored the oral, nasal and hand microbiota of families for 6 months. Here, we explore participant experiences and opinions. A mixed methods approach was utilised. A quantitative questionnaire was completed after every sampling timepoint to report levels of discomfort and pain, as well as time taken to collect samples. Participants were also invited to discuss their experiences in a qualitative structured exit interview. We received questionnaires from 36 families. Most adults and children >5y experienced no pain (94% and 70%) and little discomfort (73% and 47% no discomfort) regardless of sample type, whereas children ≤5y experienced variable levels of pain and discomfort (48% no pain but 14% hurts even more, whole lot or worst; 38% no discomfort but 33% moderate, severe, or extreme discomfort). The time taken for saliva and hand sampling decreased over the study. We conducted interviews with 24 families. Families found the sampling method straightforward, and adults and children >5y preferred nasal sampling using a synthetic absorptive matrix over nasopharyngeal swabs. It remained challenging for families to fit sampling into their busy schedules. Adequate fridge/freezer space and regular sample pick-ups were found to be important factors for feasibility. Messaging apps proved extremely effective for engaging with participants. Our findings provide key information to inform the design of future studies, specifically that self-sampling at home using minimally invasive procedures is feasible in a family context.
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.