A Comparison of Respiratory Sample Collection by a Parent or by a Healthcare Worker

Overview

The investigators are aiming to learn more about respiratory infections in young children in the community. To prepare for a larger project, the investigators are conducting this study to get information about the best way to collect and transport respiratory specimens from young children. The investigators would like to test whether parents are more likely to collect a simple respiratory specimen themselves during a child's illness, compared to the likelihood of specimen collection when a home visit is made by a health care worker. Further, the investigators want to compare the likelihood a virus will be identified in both groups.

Prior to this study, there had been one small study conducted in the Netherlands comparing parent-collected specimens at home with collection by a health care worker (HCW) during an arranged home visit. This study suggested that despite there being approximately the same number of illnesses identified in each group, the parent collection group had a higher proportion of ARIs with a specimen collected (43% vs 24%, parent vs HCW home visit), and a higher proportion of specimens tested positive for a virus (80% vs 67%), although neither of these findings was statistically significant. In order to prepare for a larger, community based study, we would like to test these findings in our environment. Community-based respiratory infection research has traditionally been conducted by home visit from a health care worker during illness to collect a sample, such as a nasopharyngeal aspirate. This method has the potential to result in non-reporting of illness or failure to collect a specimen due to the invasive nature of specimen collection or the difficulty arranging a home visit time that is convenient for parents and staff. This may bias findings and interfere with generalisability. Home collection of a simple respiratory sample has recently been demonstrated as an easy and acceptable method of conducting community-based respiratory research. Members of our group were involved in a large, community-based study in Melbourne involving 234 children and their families over a 12-month period. On this study parents successfully kept daily respiratory symptom diaries and collected a combined nose-throat swab when the child had an illness that met the definition for an acute respiratory illness (ARI) of interest. These study methods were acceptable with 87% parents reporting, at the end of the study, they would have been willing to continue with the study for at least another year. Since that study, parent collection of simple respiratory specimens has been further validated in the hospital setting and used in the home setting. We have previously shown that a swab combined with viral transport medium-soaked sponge in a secure transport tube is an efficient and safe way of transporting respiratory swabs. The method complies with guidelines for the transport of clinical specimens. As part of this study, we will use this system to allow for the transport of respiratory specimens to the Queensland Paediatric Infectious Diseases (Qpid) Laboratory through the normal surface mail, thereby allowing study families to manage specimen collection and return without the intervention of a study staff member. Flocked swabs in combination with specific viral transport media have recently been added to specimen collection options, allowing for simple and sensitive specimen collection whilst avoiding more invasive nasopharyngeal aspirates or washes. With this study, we plan to compare parent and health care worker collection using flocked swabs, and for some specimens they will be returned to the laboratory through normal surface mail.