Literature DB >> 15203777

Obtaining DNA from a geographically dispersed cohort of current and former smokers: use of mail-based mouthwash collection and monetary incentives.

Joseph E Bauer1, Hamed Rezaishiraz, Karen Head, John Cowell, Gerold Bepler, Miriam Aiken, K Michael Cummings, Andrew Hyland.   

Abstract

The feasibility of collecting DNA through the mail from a cohort of current and former smokers was assessed. Also examined was whether monetary incentives would increase response rates. A random sample of 300 subjects, stratified by 20 U.S. communities, was selected to participate. The sampling frame included the 6,726 people who were in both the Community Intervention Trial for Smoking Cessation (COMMIT) between 1988 and 1993 and the follow-up study in 2001, and who consented to being contacted again. Subjects were further randomized within communities to incentive arms of 10 US dollars, 2 US dollars, or 0 US dollars. A total of 110 usable samples were returned (37%), and the 10 US dollars incentive arm had the highest response (43%). Logistic regression revealed no significant predictors of sending a DNA sample, although in a larger study, similar-sized odds ratios would be statistically significant for subjects who received the 10 US dollars incentive and for those who were White, female, or college graduates or whose household incomes were more than 60,000 US dollars per year. The spectrophotometer-determined median DNA yield was 44.93 microg (range=4.00-425.86 microg). Assuming that 50 ng of DNA would be needed for polymerase chain reaction amplification to determine any given genotype, 80-8,517 runs would be attainable. Qualitative findings suggest several methodological improvements to boost response rates. Institutional review board requirements, which are standardized on the inpatient, clinical protocol model, stipulated that noninstitutionally based subjects needed a witness to initial and date every page as well as sign the consent form. This pilot study showed that this requirement could pose some challenges in population-based research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15203777     DOI: 10.1080/14622200410001696583

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res        ISSN: 1462-2203            Impact factor:   4.244


  19 in total

1.  New saliva DNA collection method compared to buccal cell collection techniques for epidemiological studies.

Authors:  Nikki L Rogers; Shelley A Cole; Hao-Chang Lan; Aldo Crossa; Ellen W Demerath
Journal:  Am J Hum Biol       Date:  2007 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.937

2.  Recruiting for diversity: a pilot test of recruitment strategies for a national alcohol survey with mail-in genetic data collection.

Authors:  Karen G Chartier; Priscilla Martinez; Cory Cummings; Brien P Riley; Katherine J Karriker-Jaffe
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2021-01-04

3.  Collecting saliva by mail for genetic and cotinine analyses in participants recruited through the Internet.

Authors:  Jean-François Etter; Elisabeth Neidhart; Sonia Bertrand; Alain Malafosse; Daniel Bertrand
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 8.082

4.  New strategies for biosample collection in population-based social research.

Authors:  Heather H Gatny; Mick P Couper; William G Axinn
Journal:  Soc Sci Res       Date:  2013-03-22

5.  ITC "spit and butts" pilot study: the feasibility of collecting saliva and cigarette butt samples from smokers to evaluate policy.

Authors:  Brian V Fix; Richard O'Connor; David Hammond; Bill King; Ann McNeill; James Thrasher; Marcelo Boado; K Michael Cummings; Hua-Hie Yong; Mary E Thompson; Andrew Hyland
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2010-01-15       Impact factor: 4.244

6.  Participant characteristics that influence consent for genetic research in a population-based survey: the Baltimore epidemiologic catchment area follow-up.

Authors:  Briana Mezuk; William W Eaton; Peter Zandi
Journal:  Community Genet       Date:  2008-03-26

7.  Factors affecting maternal participation in the genetic component of the National Birth Defects Prevention Study-United States, 1997-2007.

Authors:  Jill Glidewell; Jennita Reefhuis; Sonja A Rasmussen; Alison Woomert; Charlotte Hobbs; Paul A Romitti; Krista S Crider
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-09-26       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  Quality of DNA extracted from saliva samples collected with the Oragene™ DNA self-collection kit.

Authors:  Ana P Nunes; Isabel O Oliveira; Betânia R Santos; Cristini Millech; Liziane P Silva; David A González; Pedro C Hallal; Ana M B Menezes; Cora L Araújo; Fernando C Barros
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-05-04       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 9.  Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.

Authors:  Philip James Edwards; Ian Roberts; Mike J Clarke; Carolyn Diguiseppi; Reinhard Wentz; Irene Kwan; Rachel Cooper; Lambert M Felix; Sarah Pratap
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2009-07-08

Review 10.  Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.

Authors:  Valerie C Brueton; Jayne Tierney; Sally Stenning; Seeromanie Harding; Sarah Meredith; Irwin Nazareth; Greta Rait
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-12-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.