Pain and feasibility of capillary self-blood collection in general practice: A cross-sectional investigative study.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
European Journal of General Practice Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-23 DOI:10.1080/13814788.2025.2501309
Christopher Schuchardt, Frank Müller, Angelika Hafke, Eva Hummers, Julie Schanz, Alexandra Dopfer-Jablonka, Georg M N Behrens, Dominik Schröder
{"title":"Pain and feasibility of capillary self-blood collection in general practice: A cross-sectional investigative study.","authors":"Christopher Schuchardt, Frank Müller, Angelika Hafke, Eva Hummers, Julie Schanz, Alexandra Dopfer-Jablonka, Georg M N Behrens, Dominik Schröder","doi":"10.1080/13814788.2025.2501309","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Capillary self-blood collection (SBC) with mailed samples enables remote laboratory monitoring without in-person healthcare visits. This approach may improve continuity of care for patients, especially with chronic conditions.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Compare pain perception between venous blood draws and capillary SBC and evaluate the usability and blood volume yield of SBC devices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this cross-sectional study, general practice patients from mid of Germany, Germany performed SBC using the Tasso+<sup>®</sup> upper-arm device and mailed samples to a laboratory. Pain, usability, SBC volume, and associated factors were analysed using bivariate and general linear models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 106 patients, 57.5% performed SBC without assistance. Self-perceived pain was lower among SBC draws (0.13, SD = 0.42) versus venous draws (1.21, SD = 1.60) (<i>p</i> < .001). 59.4% self-collected ≥130 μL blood plasma. Patient characteristics were not associated with SBC volume in regression analysis. Overall, the mean System Usability Scale (SUS) score was 86.2, indicating high usability. Lower school education was associated with lower usability scores, while lower fear of blood and needles were associated with higher usability scores in regression analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Capillary SBC had high feasibility and usability and caused less pain than venous draws in the general practice setting. SBC shows promises for enabling remote laboratory monitoring.</p>","PeriodicalId":54380,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of General Practice","volume":"31 1","pages":"2501309"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12107643/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2025.2501309","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Capillary self-blood collection (SBC) with mailed samples enables remote laboratory monitoring without in-person healthcare visits. This approach may improve continuity of care for patients, especially with chronic conditions.

Objectives: Compare pain perception between venous blood draws and capillary SBC and evaluate the usability and blood volume yield of SBC devices.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, general practice patients from mid of Germany, Germany performed SBC using the Tasso+® upper-arm device and mailed samples to a laboratory. Pain, usability, SBC volume, and associated factors were analysed using bivariate and general linear models.

Results: Of 106 patients, 57.5% performed SBC without assistance. Self-perceived pain was lower among SBC draws (0.13, SD = 0.42) versus venous draws (1.21, SD = 1.60) (p < .001). 59.4% self-collected ≥130 μL blood plasma. Patient characteristics were not associated with SBC volume in regression analysis. Overall, the mean System Usability Scale (SUS) score was 86.2, indicating high usability. Lower school education was associated with lower usability scores, while lower fear of blood and needles were associated with higher usability scores in regression analysis.

Conclusions: Capillary SBC had high feasibility and usability and caused less pain than venous draws in the general practice setting. SBC shows promises for enabling remote laboratory monitoring.

疼痛和可行性的毛细血管自我采血在一般做法:横断面调查研究。
背景:邮寄样品的毛细管自血采集(SBC)可以实现远程实验室监测,而无需亲自就诊。这种方法可以提高病人的护理连续性,特别是慢性病患者。目的:比较静脉血和毛细管SBC对疼痛的感知,评价SBC装置的可用性和血容量产率。方法:在这项横断研究中,来自德国中部的全科患者使用Tasso+®上臂装置进行SBC,并将样本邮寄到实验室。使用双变量和一般线性模型分析疼痛、可用性、SBC体积和相关因素。结果:在106例患者中,57.5%的患者在没有辅助的情况下进行了SBC。相比静脉抽吸(1.21,SD = 1.60), SBC抽吸组的自我感知疼痛更低(0.13,SD = 0.42)。(p)结论:在一般情况下,毛细血管SBC抽吸具有较高的可行性和可用性,引起的疼痛比静脉抽吸少。SBC显示了实现远程实验室监控的承诺。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Journal of General Practice
European Journal of General Practice PRIMARY HEALTH CARE-MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
5.90%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The EJGP aims to: foster scientific research in primary care medicine (family medicine, general practice) in Europe stimulate education and debate, relevant for the development of primary care medicine in Europe. Scope The EJGP publishes original research papers, review articles and clinical case reports on all aspects of primary care medicine (family medicine, general practice), providing new knowledge on medical decision-making, healthcare delivery, medical education, and research methodology. Areas covered include primary care epidemiology, prevention, diagnosis, pharmacotherapy, non-drug interventions, multi- and comorbidity, palliative care, shared decision making, inter-professional collaboration, quality and safety, training and teaching, and quantitative and qualitative research methods.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信