Research In Your Mailbox: Remote Blood Self-sampling Enables Participation of Underserved Populations in Longitudinal Studies

Structured AbstractO_ST_ABSImportanceC_ST_ABSRemote sampling technologies are invaluable for protecting both participants and researchers when studying highly infectious diseases. When leveraged for longitudinal studies, remote sampling with transcriptomic readouts is a powerful tool for studying the host immune response. Additionally, remote study flexibility circumvents common barriers to research participation including length of commute, transportation, and scheduling, thereby expanding access to clinical research. ObjectiveIn this work, we investigate the effectiveness of a remote study model for reaching women from underrepresented, underserved, and underreported (U3) populations. We sought to recruit individuals who qualify as underrepresented in clinical research, who are located in rural areas, or who come from disadvantaged backgrounds per the NIH definition. DesignIn this longitudinal study, U3 women positive for COVID-19 were enrolled and followed over the course of 6 months. In the first month of the infection, participants (n = 40) self-collected a set of 5 nasal swabs, 5 homeRNA-stabilized blood samples, and 2 additional unstabilized blood samples at first and last sampling. Sampling time points were spaced 5 days apart, so that the total of the 5 time points was completed within 25 days. homeRNA is a platform for remote self-collection of blood samples with subsequent RNA stabilization. A subset of participants likely to develop post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) and their age-matched controls were selected to self-collect an additional set of 5 nasal swabs and 5 homeRNA-stabilized blood samples during month 3 of study participation, with the same sampling frequency. All participants were resurveyed at months 4, 5, and 6 about their symptoms. Participants also completed surveys at each sampling and a more comprehensive survey about study experience after each set of 5 time points. SettingThis was a fully remote study with all sampling supplies and instructions shipped to the participants. Participants self-collected blood and nasal swabs at home and shipped these back to our lab for further processing. Surveys were administered electronically using REDCap. ParticipantsFor this study, we enrolled women who were 18 or older, met the NIH criteria for U3, and who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within a week of enrollment. Further, we excluded protected populations including individuals who were pregnant and/or incarcerated. Of the 334 individuals who completed the screening process, 65 were invited into the study based on the eligibility criteria and balancing age, race/ethnicity, and state of residence to closely correspond to the demographics of the United States. Of the 65 invited individuals, 40 were fully enrolled in the study and 39 completed all study components. Main Outcomes and MeasuresPrior to the study, we proposed that the increased flexibility of a remote study design would allow for participation of populations underrepresented in clinical research. The primary measurements planned for this study consisted of usability data and general experience in a longitudinal study. These data were collected by self report using electronically administered surveys. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), a well-established implementation science framework, was used to guide the development of questions about usability and study experience. Results40 women were recruited from 19 states, with diverse racial backgrounds (62% White, 15% Black or African American, 10% Asian, 5% American Indian or Alaska Native, 5% Other, 3% More than one race), a mostly even age distribution (26% ages 20 - 29, 15% ages 30 - 39, 31% ages 40 - 49, 28% ages 50+), and most of whom (80%) are categorized as having a disadvantaged background per the NIH. Survey responses show high satisfaction with the study, where all participants who completed the study (100%, n = 39/39) indicating that they would be willing to participate in a similar study again, with most (n = 32/39) indicating a willingness to participate for up to 4 years with around 15 samples collected per year. We note that 4 years was the longest time period that participants were able to select in their surveys, suggesting that participants may be willing to participate for even longer periods. Most (>90%) either agreed or strongly agreed that all components of the kit were easy to use. Conclusions and RelevanceThe high retention (98%, n = 39/40) and satisfaction of participants in this study indicates the utility of a remote study design for longitudinal research. We also find that study topic, flexibility of study, and positive interactions with the study team are important factors for participant recruitment and retention. This work suggests that the increased flexibility of a fully remote design enables engagement of individuals who may otherwise be excluded from clinical research.