Schultze A, Akmatov M K, Andrzejak M, Karras N, Kemmling Y, Maulhardt A, Wieghold S, Ahrens W, Günther K, Schlenz H, Krause G, Pessler F
Department of Epidemiology, Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, Inhoffenstraße 7, 38124, Braunschweig, Germany,
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2014 Nov;57(11):1264-9. doi: 10.1007/s00103-014-2051-z.
For certain laboratory investigations it is necessary to obtain native stool samples and process them within a narrow time window at the point of contact or a nearby laboratory. However, it is not known whether it is feasible to obtain stool samples from asymptomatic individuals during an appointment in a study center (SC). We therefore compared participants' preference, feasibility and acceptance of stool sample collection during the appointment at the study center (on-site sampling) to collection at home after the appointment.
The study was conducted at two sites in Northern Germany (Bremen, n = 156; Hannover, n = 147) during the Pretest 2 phase of the German National Cohort (GNC), drawing upon a randomly selected population supplemented by a small convenience sample. In the study center, the participants were given the choice to provide a stool sample during the appointment or to collect a sample later at home and return it by mail.
In all, 303 of the 351 participants (86 %) of Pretest 2 at these sites participated in this feasibility study. Only 7.9 % (24/303) of the participants chose on-site collection, whereas 92 % (279/303) chose at-home collection. There were significant differences between the two study sites in that 14 % (21/147) of participants in Hannover and 2 % (3/156) of participants in Bremen chose on-site collection. Compliance was high in both groups, as 100 % (24/24) and 98 % (272/279) of participants in the on-site and at-home groups, respectively, provided complete samples. Both methods were highly accepted, as 92 % of the participants in each group (22/24 and 227/248) stated that stool collection at the respective site was acceptable.
When given a choice, most participants in this population-based study preferred home collection of stool samples to collection in the study center. Thus, native stool samples for immediate processing in the study center may potentially be obtained only from a subpopulation of participants, which may lead to selection bias. Home collection, on the other hand, proved to be a highly feasible method for studies that do not require freshly collected native stool.
对于某些实验室检测,有必要获取原始粪便样本,并在接触点或附近实验室的狭窄时间窗口内对其进行处理。然而,尚不清楚在研究中心(SC)预约期间从无症状个体获取粪便样本是否可行。因此,我们比较了参与者对在研究中心预约期间采集粪便样本(现场采样)与预约后在家中采集的偏好、可行性和接受度。
该研究在德国北部的两个地点(不来梅,n = 156;汉诺威,n = 147)进行,处于德国国家队列(GNC)的预测试2阶段,抽取了随机选择的人群并辅以少量便利样本。在研究中心,参与者可以选择在预约期间提供粪便样本,或者稍后在家中采集样本并邮寄回来。
在这些地点的预测试2的351名参与者中,共有303人(86%)参与了这项可行性研究。只有7.9%(24/303)的参与者选择现场采集,而92%(279/303)的参与者选择在家中采集。两个研究地点之间存在显著差异,汉诺威14%(21/147)的参与者和不来梅2%(3/156)的参与者选择现场采集。两组的依从性都很高,现场组和在家组分别有100%(24/24)和98%(272/279)的参与者提供了完整样本。两种方法都得到了高度认可,每组92%的参与者(22/24和227/248)表示在各自地点采集粪便样本是可以接受的。
在这项基于人群的研究中,大多数参与者在有选择的情况下,更喜欢在家中采集粪便样本,而不是在研究中心采集。因此,可能只能从一部分参与者中获取用于在研究中心立即处理的原始粪便样本,这可能导致选择偏倚。另一方面,对于不需要新鲜采集的原始粪便的研究,在家中采集被证明是一种高度可行的方法。