Feasibility and acceptance of cervicovaginal self-sampling within the German National Cohort (Pretest 2).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Within the German National Cohort (GNC) 100,000 adult women in Germany will be comprehensively interviewed and examined. While women's health is addressed in the basic interview, direct detection of cervicovaginal microbial colonisation or infection is not part of the examination protocol. In a pilot project the feasibility of female study participants of the GNC collecting a cervicovaginal lavage at home without having to involve a gynecologist or other medical personnel was thus investigated. The ability of the procedure to detect vaginal microbes and conditions including human papillomavirus (HPV), Chlamydia trachomatis and bacterial vaginosis (BV) were also explored. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted in two study centers (Hamburg and Hanover) of the GNC during Pretest 2 in 2012 as an add-on module to the main program of the National Cohort. Participants were randomly selected through the population registration office. After providing written informed consent at the study center, participants self-collected a cervicovaginal lavage (Delphi Screener™) at home following written instructions. Participants mailed samples and acceptability questionnaires to the laboratory and the study center, respectively. Acceptability of self-sampling was categorized as consent, partial consent and rejection. The samples were analyzed by multiplex HPV genotyping for the presence of 27 mucosal HPV subtypes. To detect other pathogens "Sexually Transmitted Infection Profiling" (STIP) was used, a novel multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for various vaginally occurring pathogens/conditions coupled with subsequent bead-based Luminex(®) hybridization. Human beta-globin and DNA polymerase alpha (PolA) sequences were used as positive controls for the detection of human DNA during HPV detection and STIP, respectively. RESULTS: The participation based on the proportion of all women in Pretest 2 who could take part in the add-on Pretest 2 was 67.3 % (109 out of 162). The age of participants ranged from 20 to 69 years. The self-reported median duration of the collection of the lavage was 5 min. Analysis of the questionnaires (n = 108) revealed that the self-sampling of a cervicovaginal lavage was acceptable to 98 % of women (106 out of 108), and considered to be easy by 89 % (96 out of 108) as well as user-friendly by 96 % of the women (104 out of 108). Human beta-globin and PolA as markers for human DNA and sample quality were detected in all samples analyzed while HPV as a marker for pathogen detectability was identified in 18 out of 109 samples. Of the 107 samples tested with STIP as a second marker for pathogen detectability, 5 samples were excluded from statistical analyses on bacterial colonization because of signs in the laboratory results of the use of antibiotics. For the computation of the possible occurrence of bacterial vaginosis and candidiasis 7 and 8 samples, respectively, were excluded because of low signal intensities resulting in an evaluation of 95 or 94 samples, respectively. Ureaplasma parvum was detected in 22 out of 102 samples, BV in 14 out of 95 samples and candidiasis in 13 out of 94 samples. Chlamydia trachomatis was not detected in any sample. CONCLUSION: The feasibility study on cervicovaginal self-sampling indicates that this form of biosampling was very well accepted within the framework of the GNC and feasible in terms of pathogen detection. Its further application in the GNC would allow investigation of transience and persistence, or long-term effects of vaginal (co)infections and colonization.

Test-retest reliability of an infectious disease questionnaire and evaluation of self-assessed vulnerability to infections : findings of Pretest 2 of the German National Cohort.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: Large scale population-based studies focusing on infectious diseases are scarce. This may be explained by methodological obstacles concerning ascertainment of data on infectious diseases requiring, e.g. collection of data on relatively short-termed symptoms and/or collection of biosamples for pathogen identification during a narrow time window. In the German National Cohort (GNC), a novel self-administered questionnaire will be used in addition to biosampling to collect data on selected infectious diseases and symptoms. The aim of this study was to evaluate in Pretest 2 of the GNC newly added items on self-assessed vulnerability to several infectious diseases and to assess test-retest reliability of the questionnaire. METHODS: The study was conducted in two study centres (Hamburg and Hanover) during Pretest 2 of the GNC. A self-administered paper questionnaire was applied. In Hamburg, participants were asked to fill in the questionnaire during their regular visit at the study centre. For test-retest reliability, participants in Hanover filled in the same questionnaire at home twice. To evaluate agreement, item-related percentage agreement and kappa (κ) were calculated. In addition, we computed Bennet's S and Krippendorf's alpha (α). Items on self-assessed vulnerability to infections were evaluated by comparing them with the corresponding self-reported frequency of infections. An explanatory factor analysis was applied to construct the scores of self-reported infection frequency and self-assessed vulnerability to infections. RESULTS: The evaluation of the internal consistency of the five-item instrument of self-assessed vulnerability to infections resulted in a Cronbach's α of 0.78. The factor analysis yielded evidence of one factor. The factor was divided into three groups (lowest quintile classified as "less prone to infections" compared to peers; second, middle and fourth quintiles classified as "similarly prone to infections" and highest quintile classified as "more prone to infections"). Participants classified as "less prone to infections" reported fewer infections than participants classified as "more prone to infections". Spearman's correlation of the two scores (self-reported infection frequency and self-assessed vulnerability to infection) was 0.50 (p < 0.0001). For quantifying reliability, 88 participants with a median time of 8 days between filling in both questionnaires could be included in the analysis; for items sensitive to disease occurrence between both questionnaires only participants with no relevant disease in this time interval were included (n = 75). The weighted κ ranged between 0.65 and 0.87 for the items on infectious disease frequency in the last 12 months, for items on symptom frequency in the past 12 months between 0.77 and 0.90, and for items on vulnerability compared to peers between 0.68 and 0.76. CONCLUSION: A five-item instrument on self-assessed vulnerability to infections seems to be promising, but requires further evaluation. Overall, the questionnaire on self-reported infectious diseases used in Pretest 2 of the GNC is a moderately reliable instrument and, thus, can be applied in future studies on infectious diseases.

Comparison of stool collection on site versus at home in a population-based study : feasibility and participants' preference in Pretest 2 of the German National Cohort.

BACKGROUND: For certain laboratory investigations it is necessary to obtain native stool samples and process them within a narrow time window at the point of contact or a nearby laboratory. However, it is not known whether it is feasible to obtain stool samples from asymptomatic individuals during an appointment in a study center (SC). We therefore compared participants' preference, feasibility and acceptance of stool sample collection during the appointment at the study center (on-site sampling) to collection at home after the appointment. METHODS: The study was conducted at two sites in Northern Germany (Bremen, n = 156; Hannover, n = 147) during the Pretest 2 phase of the German National Cohort (GNC), drawing upon a randomly selected population supplemented by a small convenience sample. In the study center, the participants were given the choice to provide a stool sample during the appointment or to collect a sample later at home and return it by mail. RESULTS: In all, 303 of the 351 participants (86 %) of Pretest 2 at these sites participated in this feasibility study. Only 7.9 % (24/303) of the participants chose on-site collection, whereas 92 % (279/303) chose at-home collection. There were significant differences between the two study sites in that 14 % (21/147) of participants in Hannover and 2 % (3/156) of participants in Bremen chose on-site collection. Compliance was high in both groups, as 100 % (24/24) and 98 % (272/279) of participants in the on-site and at-home groups, respectively, provided complete samples. Both methods were highly accepted, as 92 % of the participants in each group (22/24 and 227/248) stated that stool collection at the respective site was acceptable. CONCLUSION: When given a choice, most participants in this population-based study preferred home collection of stool samples to collection in the study center. Thus, native stool samples for immediate processing in the study center may potentially be obtained only from a subpopulation of participants, which may lead to selection bias. Home collection, on the other hand, proved to be a highly feasible method for studies that do not require freshly collected native stool.