Back

Bringing Pediatric Blood Collection Into the Home: A Parent-Administered Study of RedDrop ONE

Coleman, T.; Mello, M.; Kazanjian, R.; Kazanjian, M.; Olsen, D.; Coleman, J.; Menna, J.

2026-02-11 public and global health
10.64898/2026.02.09.26345931 medRxiv
Show abstract

Frequent blood testing is a routine but burdensome reality for many children, particularly those with chronic, rare, or medically complex conditions. Repeated clinic, hospital, and laboratory visits can disrupt family life, increase stress for children and caregivers, and limit access to timely monitoring and research participation. Despite advances in pediatric care, blood collection has remained largely tethered to in-person clinical settings. This study validates a new model: safe, effective, parent-administered pediatric blood collection performed at-home. We evaluated the RedDrop ONE capillary blood collection device in a real-world, parent-administered home setting to determine whether non-clinical caregivers can reliably collect clinically meaningful blood samples from children without venipuncture, specialized training, or in-clinic support. Conducted under Institutional Review Board (IRB) oversight, this observational usability study enrolled 50 children aged 3-17 years across a geographically diverse U.S.-based pediatric population, including healthy and medically fragile children with chronic autoimmune and rare diseases. All study activities, including enrollment, consent, instruction, collection, and sample return, were completed remotely, reflecting real-world adoption conditions rather than controlled clinical environments. Parents successfully collected blood samples from their children at home with high consistency, low perceived pain, and strong overall acceptance. Across collections, blood and serum volumes were sufficient and reproducible, and laboratory analysis confirmed strong analytical concordance between samples collected from two different anatomical sites, arm and leg. Parents reported high confidence using the device, short collection times, and a high likelihood of completing collections on the first attempt. Importantly, both parents and children rated the overall experience as better than expected, and parents consistently reported that the RedDrop ONE experience was superior to traditional finger-prick and needle-based venous blood draws. Parents reported minimal child discomfort and greater flexibility by avoiding in-clinic phlebotomy visits. These benefits are especially meaningful for families managing chronic or rare pediatric conditions that require repeated blood monitoring. By enabling blood collection at-home, this model reduces travel burden, scheduling constraints, and procedural anxiety while maintaining analytical reliability. This study also demonstrated that parent-administered pediatric blood collection can support real-world clinical workflows beyond research. All samples were successfully shipped overnight at ambient temperature and processed by a CLIA-certified laboratory, supporting feasibility for remote pediatric patient monitoring and decentralized clinical trials. While lipid testing served as the representative clinical use case, the volumes and consistency achieved exceeded volume thresholds commonly required for advanced downstream applications, including proteomics, metabolomics, transcriptomics, and genomic analyses. Taken together, these findings validate parent-administered pediatric blood collection as a practical, scalable alternative to in-clinic phlebotomy for many use cases. By shifting blood collection from the clinic to the home, this approach has the potential to reduce reliance on in-person phlebotomy, integrate seamlessly into routine pediatric care, and expand access to monitoring and research for families who face geographic, logistical, or medical barriers. For health systems, researchers, and parents alike, this study supports a future in which clinically meaningful pediatric blood collection is no longer limited by healthcare facility location but instead centered on the child and family.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 17%
10.7%
2
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
8.6%
3
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
4
Analytical Chemistry
205 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
5.0%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 30%
4.1%
6
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 24%
3.7%
7
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
8
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.0%
9
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.7%
10
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
50% of probability mass above
11
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.7%
12
Lab on a Chip
88 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.4%
13
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
14
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
15
SLAS Technology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
16
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 48%
1.9%
17
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.7%
18
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
19
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
20
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
21
Bioengineering & Translational Medicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
22
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
23
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
24
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
25
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
26
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
27
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
28
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
29
ACS Applied Bio Materials
21 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
30
Cytotherapy
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%