Background: Remote patient monitoring can shift important data collection opportunities to low-cost settings. Here, we evaluate whether the quality of blood-samples taken by patients at home differs from samples taken from the same patients by clinical staff. We examine the effects of socio-demographic and patient reported outcomes (PRO) survey data on remote blood sampling compliance and quality. Methods: Samples were collected both in-clinic by study-staff and remotely by subjects at home. During cataloging the samples were graded for quality. We used chi-squared tests and logistic regressions to examine differences in quality and compliance between samples taken in-clinic versus samples taken by subjects at-home. Results: 64.6% of in-clinic samples and 69.7% of samples collected remotely at home received a Good (compared to Not Good) quality grade (chi2 = 4.91; p =.03). Regression analysis found remote samples had roughly 1.5 times higher odds of being Good quality compared to samples taken in-clinic (p <.001; 95% CI 1.18-2.03). Increased anxiety reduced odds of contributing a Good sample (p =.04; 95% CI.95-1.0). Response rates were significantly higher for in-clinic sampling (95.8% vs 89.8%; p <.001). Conclusion: Blood-samples taken by patients at home using a microsampling device yielded higher quality samples than those taken in-clinic.
Background: Remote patient monitoring can shift important data collection opportunities to low-cost settings. Here, we evaluate whether the quality of blood-samples taken by patients at home differs from samples taken from the same patients by clinical staff. We examine the effects of socio-demographic and patient reported outcomes (PRO) survey data on remote blood sampling compliance and quality. Methods: Samples were collected both in-clinic by study-staff and remotely by subjects at home. During cataloging the samples were graded for quality. We used chi-squared tests and logistic regressions to examine differences in quality and compliance between samples taken in-clinic versus samples taken by subjects at-home. Results: 64.6% of in-clinic samples and 69.7% of samples collected remotely at home received a Good (compared to Not Good) quality grade (chi2 = 4.91; p =.03). Regression analysis found remote samples had roughly 1.5 times higher odds of being Good quality compared to samples taken in-clinic (p <.001; 95% CI 1.18-2.03). Increased anxiety reduced odds of contributing a Good sample (p =.04; 95% CI.95-1.0). Response rates were significantly higher for in-clinic sampling (95.8% vs 89.8%; p <.001). Conclusion: Blood-samples taken by patients at home using a microsampling device yielded higher quality samples than those taken in-clinic.
Authors: Thomas V O Hansen; Mette K Simonsen; Finn C Nielsen; Yrsa Andersen Hundrup Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Santosh Kumar; Wendy J Nilsen; Amy Abernethy; Audie Atienza; Kevin Patrick; Misha Pavel; William T Riley; Albert Shar; Bonnie Spring; Donna Spruijt-Metz; Donald Hedeker; Vasant Honavar; Richard Kravitz; R Craig Lefebvre; David C Mohr; Susan A Murphy; Charlene Quinn; Vladimir Shusterman; Dallas Swendeman Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Parveen Bhatti; Diane Kampa; Bruce H Alexander; Christopher McClure; Danny Ringer; Michele M Doody; Alice J Sigurdson Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2009-11-13 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Chrisandra Shufelt; Eldin Dzubur; Sandy Joung; Garth Fuller; Kelly N Mouapi; Irene Van Den Broek; Mayra Lopez; Shivani Dhawan; Corey W Arnold; William Speier; Mitra Mastali; Qin Fu; Jennifer E Van Eyk; Brennan Spiegel; C Noel Bairey Merz Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2019-09-03
Authors: Karine Dubé; John Kanazawa; Christopher Roebuck; Steven Johnson; William B Carter; Lynda Dee; Beth Peterson; Kenneth M Lynn; Linden Lalley-Chareczko; Emily Hiserodt; Sukyung Kim; Daniel Rosenbloom; Brad R Evans; Melanie Anderson; Daria J Hazuda; Lisa Shipley; Kevin Bateman; Bonnie J Howell; Karam Mounzer; Pablo Tebas; Luis J Montaner Journal: HIV Res Clin Pract Date: 2022-03-29
Authors: Karine Dubé; Shadi Eskaf; Elizabeth Hastie; Harsh Agarwal; Laney Henley; Christopher Roebuck; William B Carter; Lynda Dee; Jeff Taylor; Derrick Mapp; Danielle M Campbell; Thomas J Villa; Beth Peterson; Kenneth M Lynn; Linden Lalley-Chareczko; Emily Hiserodt; Sukyung Kim; Daniel Rosenbloom; Brad R Evans; Melanie Anderson; Daria J Hazuda; Lisa Shipley; Kevin Bateman; Bonnie J Howell; Karam Mounzer; Pablo Tebas; Luis J Montaner Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-02-07
Authors: Karine Dubé; Harsh Agarwal; William B Carter; Lynda Dee; Jeff Taylor; Christopher Roebuck; Beth Peterson; Hursch Patel; Samuel Ndukwe; Kenneth M Lynn; Linden Lalley-Chareczko; Emily Hiserodt; Sukyung Kim; Daniel Rosenbloom; Brad R Evans; Melanie Anderson; Daria J Hazuda; Kevin Bateman; Bonnie J Howell; Livio Azzoni; Karam Mounzer; Pablo Tebas; Luis J Montaner Journal: HIV Res Clin Pract Date: 2022-08-02