Feasibility of mail-based biospecimen collection in an online preconception cohort study.

Martha R Koenig, Amelia K Wesselink, Andrea S Kuriyama, Alina Chaiyasarikul, Elizabeth E Hatch, Lauren A Wise
Author Information
  1. Martha R Koenig: Boston University School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Boston, MA, United States.
  2. Amelia K Wesselink: Boston University School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Boston, MA, United States.
  3. Andrea S Kuriyama: Boston University School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Boston, MA, United States.
  4. Alina Chaiyasarikul: Boston University School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Boston, MA, United States.
  5. Elizabeth E Hatch: Boston University School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Boston, MA, United States.
  6. Lauren A Wise: Boston University School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Boston, MA, United States.

Abstract

Background: Prospective cohort studies that enroll participants before conception are crucial for deepening scientific understanding of how the preconception environment influences reproductive outcomes. While web-based research methods provide efficient and effective strategies to collect questionnaire-based data, few of these studies incorporate biospecimen collection, which can enhance the validity of exposure assessment. There is limited literature on the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of collecting biospecimens in web-based preconception cohort studies.
Methods: We evaluated the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of in-clinic and mail-based biospecimen collection in Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO), a North American web-based preconception cohort study. Both members of the couple were eligible to participate if their conception attempt time was ≤3 months at enrollment. We invited study participants from the Boston, MA and Detroit, MI metropolitan areas to attend a study visit and provide urine and blood (hereafter "in-clinic protocol"). We invited all other participants to complete mail-based collection of urine and blood spots (hereafter "mail-based protocol"). We compared overall consent and protocol completion rates, demographic characteristics of those who consented and completed either of the protocols, and costs between mail-based and in-clinic protocols for biospecimen collection. Finally, we described logistical challenges pertaining to reliance on mail-based delivery of time-sensitive biospecimens compared with in-clinic methods.
Results: During January 2022-July 2022, 69% of female participants (134/195) and 42% of male participants (31/74) consented to participate in the mail-based protocol. Consent rates for the in-clinic protocol were 39% for female participants (289/739 during March 2014-July 2022) and 25% for male participants (40/157 during March 2017-July 2022). Participants who consented to participate were generally of higher socioeconomic position than non-participants. Deviations from the protocol occurred more frequently within the mail-based protocol but were easily corrected. The cost per participant enrolled was similar across protocols (mail-based: $276.14 vs. in-clinic: $270.38).
Conclusions: Our results indicate that mail-based collection of biospecimens may create opportunities to recruit a larger and more geographically diverse participant population at a comparable cost-per-participant enrolled to in-clinic methods.

Keywords

References

  1. Fertil Steril. 2019 Oct;112(4):613-621 [PMID: 31561863]
  2. Cancer Control. 2022 Jan-Dec;29:10732748221110897 [PMID: 35758601]
  3. Environ Health Perspect. 2004 Jan;112(1):79-86 [PMID: 14698935]
  4. Am J Epidemiol. 2010 Dec 1;172(11):1286-91 [PMID: 20937635]
  5. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009 Nov 13;9:76 [PMID: 19912630]
  6. Environ Health Perspect. 2004 Jan;112(1):94-104 [PMID: 14698937]
  7. J Community Genet. 2016 Apr;7(2):153-8 [PMID: 26869364]
  8. Am J Epidemiol. 2007 Dec 1;166(11):1345-54 [PMID: 17728269]
  9. Environ Health Perspect. 2004 Jan;112(1):69-78 [PMID: 14698934]
  10. Reprod Health. 2020 Nov 23;17(1):186 [PMID: 33228762]
  11. J Med Internet Res. 2014 Aug 07;16(8):e189 [PMID: 25135800]
  12. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2008 May;11(5-6):373-517 [PMID: 18470797]
  13. J Adv Nurs. 2009 Jun;65(6):1309-17 [PMID: 19445011]
  14. Hum Reprod. 2016 Jul;31(7):1570-8 [PMID: 27170433]
  15. J Paediatr Child Health. 2013 Jan;49(1):57-62 [PMID: 23198794]
  16. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2016 Jan;106(1):47-54 [PMID: 26407522]
  17. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2015 Jul;29(4):360-71 [PMID: 26111445]
  18. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Mar 01;19(3):e58 [PMID: 28249833]
  19. Am J Hum Genet. 2017 Mar 2;100(3):414-427 [PMID: 28190457]
  20. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2018 May 9;14(1):9 [PMID: 29744694]
  21. JMIR Res Protoc. 2016 Jan 05;5(1):e3 [PMID: 26732016]
  22. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2021 Jan 21;7(1):e24588 [PMID: 33475521]
  23. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2020 Sep;34(5):504-512 [PMID: 31838751]
  24. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2014 Feb 15;24(1):89-104 [PMID: 24627718]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0mail-basedparticipantscollectioncohortpreconceptionbiospecimenin-clinicprotocolmethodsstudystudiesweb-basedbiospecimensparticipateconsentedprotocols2022conceptionprovidefeasibilitycost-effectivenessinvitedurinebloodhereafterprotocol"comparedratesfemalemaleMarchparticipantenrolledBackground:Prospectiveenrollcrucialdeepeningscientificunderstandingenvironmentinfluencesreproductiveoutcomesresearchefficienteffectivestrategiescollectquestionnaire-baseddataincorporatecanenhancevalidityexposureassessmentlimitedliteraturecollectingMethods:evaluatedPregnancyStudyOnlinePRESTONorthAmericanmemberscoupleeligibleattempttime≤3monthsenrollmentBostonMADetroitMImetropolitanareasattendvisit"in-cliniccompletespots"mail-basedoverallconsentcompletiondemographiccharacteristicscompletedeithercostsFinallydescribedlogisticalchallengespertainingreliancedeliverytime-sensitiveResults:January2022-July69%134/19542%31/74Consent39%289/7392014-July25%40/1572017-JulyParticipantsgenerallyhighersocioeconomicpositionnon-participantsDeviationsoccurredfrequentlywithineasilycorrectedcostpersimilaracrossmail-based:$27614vsin-clinic:$27038Conclusions:resultsindicatemaycreateopportunitiesrecruitlargergeographicallydiversepopulationcomparablecost-per-participantFeasibilityonlinecomparisoninternet

Similar Articles

Cited By