ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Research In Your Mailbox: Remote Blood Self-sampling Enables Participation of Underserved Populations in Longitudinal Studies.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2026. 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
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Remote sampling technologies are invaluable for protecting both participants and researchers when studying highly infectious diseases. When leveraged for longitudinal studies, remote sampling with transcriptomic readouts is a powerful tool for studying the host immune response. Additionally, remote study flexibility circumvents common barriers to research participation including length of commute, transportation, and scheduling, thereby expanding access to clinical research. Objective: In this work, we investigate the effectiveness of a remote study model for reaching women from underrepresented, underserved, and underreported (U3) populations. We sought to recruit individuals who qualify as underrepresented in clinical research, who are located in rural areas, or who come from disadvantaged backgrounds per the NIH definition. Design: In this longitudinal study, U3 women positive for COVID-19 were enrolled and followed over the course of 6 months. In the first month of the infection, participants ( Setting: This was a fully remote study with all sampling supplies and instructions shipped to the participants. Participants self-collected blood and nasal swabs at home and shipped these back to our lab for further processing. Surveys were administered electronically using REDCap. Participants: For this study, we enrolled women who were 18 or older, met the NIH criteria for U3, and who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within a week of enrollment. Further, we excluded protected populations including individuals who were pregnant and/or incarcerated. Of the 334 individuals who completed the screening process, 65 were invited into the study based on the eligibility criteria and balancing age, race/ethnicity, and state of residence to closely correspond to the demographics of the United States. Of the 65 invited individuals, 40 were fully enrolled in the study and 39 completed all study components. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prior to the study, we proposed that the increased flexibility of a remote study design would allow for participation of populations underrepresented in clinical research. The primary measurements planned for this study consisted of usability data and general experience in a longitudinal study. These data were collected by self report using electronically administered surveys. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), a well-established implementation science framework, was used to guide the development of questions about usability and study experience. Results: 40 women were recruited from 19 states, with diverse racial backgrounds (62% White, 15% Black or African American, 10% Asian, 5% American Indian or Alaska Native, 5% Other, 3% More than one race), a mostly even age distribution (26% ages 20 - 29, 15% ages 30 - 39, 31% ages 40 - 49, 28% ages 50+), and most of whom (80%) are categorized as having a disadvantaged background per the NIH. Survey responses show high satisfaction with the study, where all participants who completed the study (100%, Conclusions and Relevance: The high retention (98%,
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.