ArticleHealth science reports2025
Comparing Participant Experiences of at-Home and Hospital-Based Biological Sampling: Cross-Sectional Insights From the SIREN Study.
Article in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Engaging and retaining research participants in studies that require sampling (e.g., blood, sputum) can be challenging. Regularly contributing biological sampling can be demanding for healthcare workers (HCW) in particular. SIREN is a prospective cohort of HCW in the UK who have been carrying out COVID-19 testing since 2020. We aimed to evaluate satisfaction with at-home PCR and blood sampling by collecting SIREN participants' feedback regarding sampling processes for COVID-19 testing. We explored the acceptability of at-home (PCR swab and finger-prick blood sampling) compared to at-hospital (PCR swab and phlebotomy) sampling. Thematic analysis was used to code free-text responses. Out of 2,816 respondents, 74% preferred PCR testing at home compared to on site. Half of 1,279 participants who returned blood samples using a postal kit preferred to complete serological sampling at home instead of in hospital (52%). One in five reported no preference. Participants valued the ease and convenience of home-sampling and clear communication about instructions and test results. Some participants reported difficulties with blood collection or logistic issues related to kits, but this did not prevent them from returning samples nor deter them from undergoing sampling in future research. Home-sampling for PCR and serological testing was acceptable and feasible in this HCW cohort. Self-sampling can be a cost-effective and efficient way of collecting participant data. Clear communications about instructions for sample collection and the purpose of capturing the sample, easy-to-use devices and ensuring participants feel valued are strong facilitators to high uptake, and on-going study retention.
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.