Randomised trial investigating the relationship of response rate for blood sample donation to site of biospecimen collection, fasting status and reminder letter: The 45 and Up Study

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Louisa Jorm¹  Tanya Mather³  Kris Rogers²  Nicol Herbert²  Emily Banks² 

[1] School of Medicine, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia;The Sax Institute, Sydney, Australia;National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

关键词: Biospecimens;    Reminder;    Fasting status;    Response rate;    Biobank;   

Others  :  1126699
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-12-147

 received in 2012-05-02, accepted in 2012-09-17,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Various options exist for collecting biospecimens and biomarkers from cohort study participants, and these have important logistic, resource and scientific implications. Evidence on how different collection methods affect participation and data quality is lacking. This parallel-design randomised trial, the Link-Up Study, involved blood sample donation and other data collection among participants in an existing cohort study, The 45 and Up Study. It aimed to investigate the relation of fasting status, reminder letters and data collection site to response rates, data quality and biospecimen yield.

Methods

Individuals aged 45 and over participating in The 45 and Up Study and living ≤20 km from central Wagga Wagga, NSW (regional area) or ≤10 km from central Parramatta, NSW (urban area) (n = 2340) were randomised, stratified by area of residence, to be invited to give a blood sample and additional data by attending either a clinic established specifically for the trial, with an appointment time (“dedicated clinic”, n = 1336) or an existing local commercial pathology centre (n = 1004). Within dedicated clinic groups, participants were randomised into fasting (n = 668) or non-fasting (n = 668) and, at the Parramatta pathology centre site, reminder letter after two weeks (n = 336) or no reminder (n = 334).

Results

Overall, 33% (762/2340) of invitees took part in the Link-Up Study; 41% (410/1002) among regional and 26% (352/1338) among urban-area residents (p < 0.0001). At the dedicated clinics, response rates were 38% (257/668) not fasting and 38% fasting (257/668) (participation rate ratio (RR) = 1.00, 95%CI 0.91-1.08, p = 0.98). The response rate was 22% among individuals randomised to attend the Parramatta pathology centre without a reminder and 23% among those sent a reminder letter (RR = 1.01, 0.93-1.09, p = 0.74). In total, the response rate was 38% (514/1336) at the dedicated clinics and 25% (248/1004) at the pathology centres (RR = 0.67, 0.56-0.78, p < 0.01); measures of height, weight and systolic and diastolic blood pressure did not vary materially between these groups, nor did the median number of aliquots of plasma, buffy coat and red cells collected.

Conclusions

Among cohort study participants, response rates for an additional study involving biospecimen collection, but not data quality or average biospecimen yield, were considerably higher at dedicated clinics than at existing commercial pathology sites.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Banks et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]UK Biobank: Protocol for a large-scale prospective epidemiological resource. City: UK Biobank Coordinating Centre; 2006. [Book Protocol for a large-scale prospective epidemiological resource] http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/docs/UKBProtocol.pdf webcite accessed 21 February 2011
• [2]Riboli E, Hunt K, Slimani N, Ferrari P, Norat T, Fahey M, Charrondière U, Hémon B, Casagrande C, Vignat J, et al.: European Prospective Study into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC): study populations and data collection. Publ Health Nutr 2003, 5:1113-1124.
• [3]45 and Up Study Collaborators: Cohort profile: the 45 and Up Study. Int J Epidemiol 2008, 37:941-947.
• [4]Cameron A, Welborn T, Zimmet P, Dunstan D, Owen N, Salmon J, Dalton M, Jolley D, Shaw J: Overweight and obesity in Australia: the 1999–2000 Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab). Med J Aust 2003, 178:427-432.
• [5]Christen P, Willmore A, Churches T: A probabilistic geocoding system utilising a parcel based address file. Cairns, Australia: Springer LNAI; 2006:130-145. [AusDM’04]
• [6]Manolio T, Collins R: Enhancing the feasibility of large cohort studies. JAMA 2010, 304:2290-2291.
• [7]Segnan N, Senore C, Giordano L, Ponti A, Ronco G: Promoting participation in a population screening program for breast and cervical cancer: a randomized trial of different invitation strategies. Tumori 1998, 84:348-353.
• [8]Pritchard D, Straton J, Hyndman J: Cervical screening in general practice. Aust N Z J Publ Health 1995, 19:167-172.
• [9]Williams EM, Vessey MP: Randomised trial of two strategies offering women mobile screening for breast cancer. BMJ 1989, 299:158-159.
• [10]Kiezebrink K, Crombie I, Irvine L, Swanson V, Power K, Wrieden W, Slane P: Strategies for achieving a high response rate in a home interview survey. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009, 9:46. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Chen K-F, Colantuoni E, Siddiqi F, Dinglas VD, Sepulveda KA, Fan E, Pronovost PJ, Needham DM: Repeated attempts using different strategies are important for timely contact with study participants. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64:1144-1151.
• [12]Stone EG, Morton SC, Hulscher ME, Maglione MA, Roth EA, Grimshaw JM, Mittman BS, Rubenstein LV, Rubenstein LZ, Shekelle PG: Interventions that increase use of adult immunization and cancer screening services. Ann Intern Med 2002, 136:641-651.
• [13]Hyndman J, Straton J, Pritchard D, Le Sueur H: Cost effectiveness of interventions to promote cervical screening in general practice. Aust N Z J Publ Health 1996, 20:272-277.
• [14]Edwards PJ, Robers I, Clarke MJ, DiGuiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, Cooper R, Felix LM, Pratap S: Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009, 8(3):MR000008.
• [15]Harrison R, Cock D: Increasing response to a postal survey of sedentary patients - a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN45665423]. BMC Health Serv Res 2004, 4:31. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Goddard K, Smith K, Chen C, McMullen C, Johnson C: Biobank recruitment: motivations for nonparticipation. Biopreservation Biobanking 2009, 7:119-121.
• [17]Kettis-Lindblad A, Ring L, Viberth E, Hansson MG: Genetic research and donation of tissue samples to biobanks. What do potential donors in the Swedish general public think? Eur J Pub Health 2005, 16:433-440.
• [18]Hoeyer K, Olofsson B, Mjorndal T, Lynoe N: Informed consent and biobanks: a population-based study of attitudes towards tissue donation for genetic research. Scand J Publ Health 2004, 32:224-229.
• [19]Wong ML, Chia KS, Yam WM: Willingness to donate blood samples for genetic research: a survey from a community in Singapore. Clin Genet 2004, 65:45-51.
• [20]Lanfear DE, Jones PG, Cresci S, Tang F, Rathore SS, Spertus JA: Factors influencing patient willingness to participate in genetic research after a myocardial infection. Genome Med 2011, 3:1-8. BioMed Central Full Text
• [21]Wang SS, Fridinger F, Sheedy KM, Khoury MJ: Public attitudes regarding the donation and storage of blood specimens for genetic research. Publ Health Genomics 2001, 4:18-26.