ArticlePatient preference and adherence2024
An Assessment of Individual Preference for a Novel Capillary Blood Collection System.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- More than a drop of blood: the paradigm shift of a large-volume capillary sample for point-of-care clinical diagnostics.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Review
- Comparing capillary blood collection technologies: assessing patient experience, device performance, & clinical accuracy.Bioanalysis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Typical barriers to venous blood collection for wellness testing include discomfort, time spent, and collection site accessibility. This study assessed individuals' experience, satisfaction, and preference associated with a FDA-cleared blood-collection device, the BD MiniDraw™ Capillary Blood Collection System (BD MiniDraw), in retail locations. Patients and Methods: A total of 113 individuals (≥18 years) with venous blood collection experience were enrolled; 107 completed the study. A pre-collection survey gathered information on demographics and past experiences with healthcare and venous blood collection settings. BD MiniDraw collection was conducted at three retail sites (two pharmacies and one grocery store) by trained healthcare workers using the Babson BetterWay blood testing service model. A follow up survey was performed two weeks later to determine experience with, and preference for, BD MiniDraw in terms of staff professionalism, blood collection location, blood collection time, and staff trustworthiness. Results: Among the 107 participants, 74 (69%) were female and 33 (31%) were male; the mean age was 49 years (range=18-71 years). Sixty-six (62%) participants viewed their prior venipuncture experience as "somewhat" or "very" positive. Following capillary collection, 96 (90%) participants expressed a "somewhat" or "very" positive experience with BD MiniDraw at a retail location. In particular, "very satisfied" responses were given for location (87/107; 81%) and collection time (78/1407; 73%). In a subset of respondents (n=89), those reasons (location and time savings) were most frequent for likelihood of future use. Ninety-nine participants (92%) rated the retail blood collection team as "very" or "extremely" trustworthy. Overall, 90 participants (84%) "strongly preferred" (56/107; 52%), "somewhat preferred" (14/107; 13%), or had "no preference" (20/107; 19%) for BD MiniDraw, compared to traditional venous blood collection. Conclusion: Most participants conveyed a preference for BD MiniDraw, primarily based on the blood collection retail location, perceived time savings, and professionalism and trustworthiness of the staff.
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.