An Assessment of Individual Preference for a Novel Capillary Blood Collection System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shirin Pourafshar,1 Monisha Parikh,2 Bilal Abdallah,2 Nasrin Al Thubian,3 James W Jacobson4 1Medical Affairs, Becton, Dickinson and Company, Sparks, MD, USA; 2Medical Affairs, Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA; 3Medical Affairs, Becton, Dickinson and Company, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada; 4Clinical Affairs, Babson Diagnostics, Austin, TX, USACorrespondence: James W Jacobson, Vice President of Clinical Affairs, Babson Diagnostics, 1321 Rutherford Ln, Bldg 2, Ste 200, Austin, TX, 78753, USA, Tel +1-888-556-8785, Fax +1-512-277-3206, Email James.jacobson@babsondx.comPurpose: Typical barriers to venous blood collection for wellness testing include discomfort, time spent, and collection site accessibility. This study assessed individuals’ experience, satisfaction, and preference associated with a FDA-cleared blood-collection device, the BD MiniDraw™ Capillary Blood Collection System (BD MiniDraw), in retail locations.Patients and Methods: A total of 113 individuals (≥ 18 years) with venous blood collection experience were enrolled; 107 completed the study. A pre-collection survey gathered information on demographics and past experiences with healthcare and venous blood collection settings. BD MiniDraw collection was conducted at three retail sites (two pharmacies and one grocery store) by trained healthcare workers using the Babson BetterWay blood testing service model. A follow up survey was performed two weeks later to determine experience with, and preference for, BD MiniDraw in terms of staff professionalism, blood collection location, blood collection time, and staff trustworthiness.Results: Among the 107 participants, 74 (69%) were female and 33 (31%) were male; the mean age was 49 years (range=18– 71 years). Sixty-six (62%) participants viewed their prior venipuncture experience as “somewhat” or “very” positive. Following capillary collection, 96 (90%) participants expressed a “somewhat” or “very” positive experience with BD MiniDraw at a retail location. In particular, “very satisfied” responses were given for location (87/107; 81%) and collection time (78/1407; 73%). In a subset of respondents (n=89), those reasons (location and time savings) were most frequent for likelihood of future use. Ninety-nine participants (92%) rated the retail blood collection team as “very” or “extremely” trustworthy. Overall, 90 participants (84%) “strongly preferred” (56/107; 52%), “somewhat preferred” (14/107; 13%), or had “no preference” (20/107; 19%) for BD MiniDraw, compared to traditional venous blood collection.Conclusion: Most participants conveyed a preference for BD MiniDraw, primarily based on the blood collection retail location, perceived time savings, and professionalism and trustworthiness of the staff.Keywords: capillary blood collection, phlebotomy, patient preference, blood specimen collection, patient satisfaction
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".