Vogel Erin A, Rebuli Meghan E, Wong Melissa, Leventhal Adam, Monterosso John, Tackett Alayna P
Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA
Institute for Addiction Science, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
BMJ Open. 2022 Dec 1;12(12):e065962. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065962.
Obtaining ecologically valid biological samples is critical for understanding respiratory effects of tobacco use, but can be burdensome. In two diverse samples, we examined feasibility and acceptability of studying pulmonary function and respiratory health entirely remotely.
Observational feasibility and acceptability study.
Adults age 18-25 (Biomedical Respiratory Effects Associated through Habitual Use of E-Cigarettes [BREATHE] Study) and 21-65 (Adult IQOS Respiratory [AIRS] Study) recruited from previous research studies and advertisements in Southern California, USA (BREATHE (AIRS): N=77 (N=31) completed baseline, n=64 (n=20) completed feasibility and acceptability measures). Shared inclusion criteria for the two studies were ownership of a smartphone, willingness to download applications and English fluency. In addition, BREATHE participants reported one of three tobacco use patterns. AIRS participants smoked daily and were willing to use a heated tobacco product. Exclusion criteria were medical contraindications.
A 4-week study consisted of five virtual study visits, twice daily ecological momentary assessment diaries and spirometry assessments, and weekly Nasal Epithelial Lining Fluid and saliva collection. All study visits were conducted via video conference; study materials and biospecimens were exchanged via mail. Participants reported feasibility and acceptability of daily diaries, breath tests, biospecimen collection and shipments.
Surveys assessed perceptions of timing and overall experience of daily diaries and breath tests, difficulty of and overall experience with biospecimen collection, and experience sending and receiving shipments.
Most participants evaluated daily diaries and breath tests as manageable (62.5%-95.0%) and likeable (54.7%-70.0%). Breath tests were frequently described as 'interesting' (55.0%-57.8%) and 'easy' (25.0%-48.4%). Most participants reported that biospecimen collection was easy (50.0%-85.0%), and that shipments were easy to send (87.5%-95.0%), receive (95.3%-95.0%) and schedule (56.3%-60.0%). No participants received shipments in poor condition.
Remote research procedures may be feasible and acceptable to facilitate tobacco research studies, potentially resulting in more diverse samples of participants and more generalisable research results.
获取具有生态学效度的生物样本对于理解烟草使用对呼吸系统的影响至关重要,但可能会很麻烦。在两个不同的样本中,我们研究了完全通过远程方式研究肺功能和呼吸健康的可行性和可接受性。
观察性可行性和可接受性研究。
年龄在18 - 25岁的成年人(通过习惯性使用电子烟产生的生物医学呼吸效应[BREATHE]研究)和21 - 65岁的成年人(成人IQOS呼吸[AIRS]研究),从美国南加州以前的研究和广告中招募(BREATHE(AIRS):N = 77(N = 31)完成基线,n = 64(n = 20)完成可行性和可接受性测量)。两项研究的共同纳入标准是拥有智能手机、愿意下载应用程序且英语流利。此外,BREATHE参与者报告了三种烟草使用模式之一。AIRS参与者每天吸烟且愿意使用加热烟草产品。排除标准为医学禁忌证。
一项为期4周的研究包括五次虚拟研究访问、每天两次的生态瞬时评估日记和肺活量测定评估,以及每周的鼻上皮衬液和唾液采集。所有研究访问均通过视频会议进行;研究材料和生物样本通过邮件交换。参与者报告了日常日记、呼吸测试、生物样本采集和运输的可行性和可接受性。
调查评估了对日常日记和呼吸测试的时间安排和总体体验的看法、生物样本采集的难度和总体体验,以及收发运输的体验。
大多数参与者认为日常日记和呼吸测试易于管理(62.5% - 95.0%)且令人满意(54.7% - 70.0%)。呼吸测试经常被描述为“有趣”(55.0% - 57.8%)和“容易”(25.0% - 48.4%)。大多数参与者报告生物样本采集很容易(50.0% - 85.0%),运输易于发送(87.5% - 95.0%)、接收(95.3% - 95.0%)和安排(56.3% - 60.0%)。没有参与者收到状态不佳的运输样本。
远程研究程序对于促进烟草研究可能是可行且可接受的,这可能会带来更多样化的参与者样本和更具普遍性的研究结果。