ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Chronic Disease/epidemiology , Feces , Patient Compliance/statistics & numerical data , Patient Preference/statistics & numerical data , Self-Examination/statistics & numerical data , Specimen Handling/methods , Specimen Handling/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Chronic Disease/prevention & control , Cohort Studies , Epidemiologic Research Design , Feasibility Studies , Female , Germany/epidemiology , Home Care Services/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Preference/psychology , Population Surveillance/methods , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Complex forms of musculoskeletal dysfunction are thought to be risk factors for the development of chronic pain syndromes of the locomotor system. Unfortunately there are insufficient data on the reliability and validity of clinical tests for musculoskeletal dysfunctions. METHOD: The intrarater and interrater reliability of clinical tests for hypermobility and for the stabilisation system were examined in a multicentre trial. A total of 68 patients in 6 centres were functionally examined by 2 examiners once (intrarater reliability) and by 1 examiner twice (interrater reliability). RESULTS: The tests for hypermobility showed good to very good reliability. The results for the stabilisation system were more variable whereby 23 tests showed a kappa-coefficient greater than 0.5 and 15 tests good to very good reliability. DISCUSSION: All tests for hypermobility and 23 tests for the stabilisation system are suitable for further evaluation. The broad range in test reliability might be explained by the differences in examiner skills demanded by each test. Therefore, dependent on their validity, some tests will be useful in specialized centres while others might be used in primary care.
