Manas K Akmatov1, Jaishri Mehraj2, Anja Gatzemeier2, Julia Strömpl2, Wolfgang Witte3, Gérard Krause2, Frank Pessler4. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, Inhoffenstraße 7, 38124 Braunschweig, Germany; TWINCORE Centre for Experimental and Clinical Infection Research, Hannover, Germany. Electronic address: manas.akmatov@helmholtz-hzi.de. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, Inhoffenstraße 7, 38124 Braunschweig, Germany. 3. Robert Koch Institute, Wernigerode, Germany. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, Inhoffenstraße 7, 38124 Braunschweig, Germany; TWINCORE Centre for Experimental and Clinical Infection Research, Hannover, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Participant-collected serial nasal swabs would be a cost-efficient feature of prospective population-based microbiological studies. We examined the feasibility of serial anterior nasal self-swabbing for Staphylococcus aureus detection in a prospective population-based study in Braunschweig, Germany, and assessed the impact of three interventions on participation and compliance. METHODS:Two thousand twenty-six inhabitants were selected randomly from the resident registries and asked to self-collect a nasal swab monthly from July 2012 to January 2013 and return it by mail. The swabs were tested for the presence of S. aureus. Participation and compliance were assessed in four study groups (incremental cash incentive, participation in a lottery, reminder by mail, and control group without incentive or reminder). RESULTS:Baseline participation was highest in the cash incentive group (24%; 123/504) and lowest in the reminder group (16%; 83/509). Approximately 90% of the participants in all groups returned the swabs each month, demonstrating high compliance irrespective of the intervention. Laboratory analyses showed that most swabs were usable for bacteriological studies. S. aureus was detected at the expected frequency of 20-27%. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based serial nasal self-swabbing proved to be feasible and highly acceptable and promises to be a cost-efficient tool for large-scale prospective population-based studies on bacterial infection or colonization.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES:Participant-collected serial nasal swabs would be a cost-efficient feature of prospective population-based microbiological studies. We examined the feasibility of serial anterior nasal self-swabbing for Staphylococcus aureus detection in a prospective population-based study in Braunschweig, Germany, and assessed the impact of three interventions on participation and compliance. METHODS: Two thousand twenty-six inhabitants were selected randomly from the resident registries and asked to self-collect a nasal swab monthly from July 2012 to January 2013 and return it by mail. The swabs were tested for the presence of S. aureus. Participation and compliance were assessed in four study groups (incremental cash incentive, participation in a lottery, reminder by mail, and control group without incentive or reminder). RESULTS: Baseline participation was highest in the cash incentive group (24%; 123/504) and lowest in the reminder group (16%; 83/509). Approximately 90% of the participants in all groups returned the swabs each month, demonstrating high compliance irrespective of the intervention. Laboratory analyses showed that most swabs were usable for bacteriological studies. S. aureus was detected at the expected frequency of 20-27%. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based serial nasal self-swabbing proved to be feasible and highly acceptable and promises to be a cost-efficient tool for large-scale prospective population-based studies on bacterial infection or colonization.
Authors: Jaishri Mehraj; Manas K Akmatov; Julia Strömpl; Anja Gatzemeier; Franziska Layer; Guido Werner; Dietmar H Pieper; Eva Medina; Wolfgang Witte; Frank Pessler; Gérard Krause Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-09-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Manas K Akmatov; Leonhard Jentsch; Peggy Riese; Marcus May; Malik W Ahmed; Damaris Werner; Anja Rösel; Jana Prokein; Inga Bernemann; Norman Klopp; Blair Prochnow; Thomas Illig; Christoph Schindler; Carlos A Guzman; Frank Pessler Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Manas K Akmatov; Nadine Koch; Marius Vital; Wolfgang Ahrens; Dieter Flesch-Janys; Julia Fricke; Anja Gatzemeier; Halina Greiser; Kathrin Günther; Thomas Illig; Rudolf Kaaks; Bastian Krone; Andrea Kühn; Jakob Linseisen; Christine Meisinger; Karin Michels; Susanne Moebus; Alexandra Nieters; Nadia Obi; Anja Schultze; Julia Six-Merker; Dietmar H Pieper; Frank Pessler Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: B C Young; A A Votintseva; D Foster; H Godwin; R R Miller; L W Anson; A S Walker; T E A Peto; D W Crook; K Knox Journal: J Hosp Infect Date: 2017-01-30 Impact factor: 3.926
Authors: Alejandra Ugarte Torres; Angel Chu; Ron Read; Judy MacDonald; Daniel Gregson; Thomas Louie; Johanna Delongchamp; Linda Ward; Joann McClure; Kunyan Zhang; John Conly Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ewan M Harrison; Nicholas S Gleadall; Xiaoliang Ba; John Danesh; Sharon J Peacock; Mark Holmes Journal: J Med Microbiol Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 2.472
Authors: Louis A van der Elst; Merve Gokce Kurtoglu; Troy Leffel; Mengxin Zheng; Alexander Gumennik Journal: Adv Eng Mater Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 4.122