Lessons Learned From the Implementation of a Pilot Study on Self-collected Specimen Return by Sexual Minority Men (Project Caboodle!): Qualitative Exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Self-collection of specimens at home and their return by mail might help reduce some of the barriers to HIV and bacterial sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening encountered by gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM). To evaluate the benefits and challenges of bringing this approach to scale, researchers are increasingly requesting GBMSM to return self-collected specimens as part of web-based sexual health studies. Testing self-collected hair samples for preexposure prophylaxis drug levels may also be a viable option to identify GBMSM who face adherence difficulties and offer them support. OBJECTIVE: Project Caboodle! sought to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of self-collecting at home and returning by mail 5 specimens (a finger-stick blood sample, a pharyngeal swab, a rectal swab, a urine specimen, and a hair sample) among 100 sexually active GBMSM in the United States aged between 18 and 34 years. In this manuscript, we aimed to describe the key lessons learned from our study's implementation and to present recommendations offered by participants to maximize the rates of self-collected specimen return. METHODS: Following the specimen self-collection phase, a subset of 25 participants (11 who returned all 5 specimens, 4 who returned between 1 and 4 specimens, and 10 who did not return any specimens) was selected for in-depth interviews conducted via a videoconferencing platform. During the session, a semistructured interview guide was used to discuss the factors influencing decisions regarding returning self-collected specimens for laboratory processing. The transcripts were analyzed using template analysis. RESULTS: University branding of web-based and physical materials instilled a sense of trust in participants and increased their confidence in the test results. Shipping the specimen self-collection box in plain unmarked packaging promoted discretion during transit and on its receipt. Using different colored bags with matching color-coded instructions to self-collect each type of specimen minimized the potential for confusion. Participants recommended including prerecorded instructional videos to supplement the written instructions, providing information on the importance of triple-site bacterial STI testing, and adding a reminder of the types of testing that would and would not be conducted on hair samples. Participants also suggested tailoring the specimen self-collection box to include only the tests that they might be interested in completing at that time, adding real-time videoconferencing to the beginning of the study to introduce the research team, and sending personalized reminders following the delivery of the specimen self-collection box. CONCLUSIONS: Our results offer valuable insights into aspects that facilitated participant engagement in self-collected specimen return, as well as areas for potential improvement to maximize return rates. Our findings can help guide the design of future large-scale studies and public health programs for home-based HIV, bacterial STI, and preexposure prophylaxis adherence testing. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/13647.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.051 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".