Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jul 1;25(1):165.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-025-02599-x.

Evaluating blood sampling strategies within the SIREN study: the experience from a large cohort of healthcare workers in the UK

Nipunadi Hettiarachchi  1 , Debbie Blick  2 , Tom Coleman  2 , Ashley Otter  2 , Angela Dunne  1 , Jameel Khawan  1 , Ezra Linley  3 , Michelle J Cole  1 ; SIREN Study Group; Michelle Cairns  1 , Jasmin Islam  1 , Sarah Foulkes  1 , Susan Hopkins  1 , Victoria Hall  1 , Ana Atti  4
Affiliations

Evaluating blood sampling strategies within the SIREN study: the experience from a large cohort of healthcare workers in the UK

Nipunadi Hettiarachchi et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: Delivering research studies that require a large number of samples to monitor specific populations is complex, often resulting in high costs and intricate logistics. We aim to describe the processes for blood sample collection and management and evaluate alternative sampling methods within a large cohort of healthcare workers in the UK (the SIREN study).

Methods: We conducted a process evaluation. First, we described blood sample collection and management across different study periods from June 2020 to March 2024 and how these evolved over time. Secondly, we compared alternative methods of blood sampling: venous phlebotomy (hospital-based) vs. capillary sampling (at-home).

Results: The main challenges with blood sampling within SIREN stemmed from the scale and use of decentralised phlebotomy across 135 hospital sites during the COVID-19 pandemic. We adapted our sampling processes as the study progressed, overcoming most of these challenges. When comparing hospital-based and at-home sampling, overall, return rates of samples taken at home were higher than site- based samples (80% vs 71%, respectively). At-home samples took less time to be returned to UKHSA Laboratory for testing compared to hospital-based samples (median 2 days; interquartile (IQ) 2-3) vs 6 days; IQ 3-8). However, at-home samples were more likely to be considered void (4%) when tested compared to hospital-based samples (0%). Cost for hospital-based sampling was almost 3-times higher than at-home sampling (£34.05 vs £11.50, respectively), although larger sample volumes were obtained via hospital-based sampling when compared to at-home sampling (8 ml vs 600 µl of whole blood).

Conclusions: Sample collection and management in large scale research studies are complex. Our results support at-home blood sampling as an effective and cheaper strategy when compared to hospital-based phlebotomy and therefore should be considered as alternative sampling method for future research.

Trial registration number: ISRCTN11041050-registration date 12/01/2021.

Keywords: Blood specimen collection; Cohort studies; Evaluation; Phlebotomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: The study protocol was approved by the Berkshire Research Ethics Committee on May 22, 2020. Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Description of study periods and blood sample collection throughout the SIREN study
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Lima-Oliveira G, Lippi G, Salvagno GL, Picheth G, Guidi GC. Laboratory Diagnostics and Quality of Blood Collection. J Med Biochem. 2015;34(3):288–94. 10.2478/jomb-2014-0043. Epub 14 Jul 2015. PMID: 28356839; PMCID: PMC4922344. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Vaughan A, Duffell E, Freidl GS, Lemos DS, Nardone A, Valenciano M, Subissi L, Bergeri I, K Broberg E, Penttinen P, Pebody R, Keramarou M. Systematic review of seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and appraisal of evidence, prior to the widespread introduction of vaccine programmes in the WHO European Region, January-December 2020. BMJ Open. 2023 Nov 6;13(11):e064240. 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064240. PMID: 37931969; PMCID: PMC10632881. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Koulman A, Rennie KL, Parkington D, Tyrrell CS, Catt M, Gkrania-Klotsas E, Wareham NJ. The development, validation and application of remote blood sample collection in telehealth programmes. J Telemed Telecare. 2024 May;30(4):731–738. 10.1177/1357633X221093434. Epub 2022 May 10. PMID: 35538704; PMCID: PMC11027437. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wong MP, Meas MA, Adams C, Hernandez S, Green V, Montoya M, Hirsch BM, Horton M, Quach HL, Quach DL, Shao X, Fedrigo I, Zermeno A, Huffaker J, Montes R, Madden A, Cyrus S, McDowell D, Williamson P, Contestable P, Stone M, Coloma J, Busch MP, Barcellos LF, Harris E. Development and Implementation of Dried Blood Spot-Based COVID-19 Serological Assays for Epidemiologic Studies. Microbiol Spectr. 2022;10(3):e0247121. 10.1128/spectrum.02471-21. Epub 25 May 2022. PMID: 35612315; PMCID: PMC9241704. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wixted D, Neighbors CE, Pieper CF, Wu A, Kingsbury C, Register H, Petzold E, Newby LK, Woods CW. Comparison of a Blood Self-Collection System with Routine Phlebotomy for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Testing. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12(8):1857. 10.3390/diagnostics12081857. PMID: 36010206; PMCID: PMC9406345 . - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources