ArticleSexually transmitted infections2025
Home-based self-collection of biological samples, including vaginal swabs: a mixed methods study for Britain's fourth National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-4).
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe decennial National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal) provide general population prevalence estimates in Britain for key sexually transmitted infections (STIs) through biosampling. Since methodological choices can impact acceptability and response rates, we evaluated processes for Natsal-4, including face-to-face and remote interview arrangements, non-return of test results and vaginal swab collection in two pilot studies.
methodsThe pilots were conducted during June to August 2021 and February to March 2022. Participants aged 16-59 years were invited to provide urine samples (cisgender men and trans/gender diverse) or three vaginal swabs (cisgender women; urine was requested if vaginal swabs were declined) following interview. Samples were self-collected at home and posted to the laboratory by the interviewer if the interview was face to face, or by the participant if they preferred to collect the sample later or the interview was remote. Process feedback was collected after the first pilot via qualitative interviews with participants and after both pilots through informal interviewer debriefing.
resultsOf 261 participants interviewed (pilot 1=130; pilot 2=131), 161 (62%) consented to biosampling, of which 129 (49%) provided samples. A sample was received from 78/153 (51%) of women, of whom 60 (77%) provided vaginal swabs and 18 (23%) provided a urine sample. A urine sample was received from 51/108 (47%) cisgender men or trans/gender diverse participants. All samples collected immediately after face-to-face interviews were received (n=77), while 64% of samples from participants consenting to post samples after face-to-face interviews and 60% after remote interviews were received. Process feedback confirmed our methods were broadly acceptable.
conclusionsWe demonstrated that our approach to biosampling and STI testing for a national sexual health survey was reasonably acceptable and feasible in the period coming out the COVID-19 pandemic. Self-collection of vaginal swabs for research, which provide higher testing sensitivity than urine, was feasible and acceptable in a home setting.
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.