Development and validation of a novel mail-in semen analysis system and the correlation between one hour and delayed semen analysis testing.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a novel, mail-in semen analysis (SA) system. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Ejaculates from normospermic men. INTERVENTION(S): One-hour SA, then repeat SAs (on same ejaculate) over 52 hours using a novel technique for maintaining sperm viability. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): World Health Organization SA parameters. RESULT(S): One-hour SA on 104 ejaculates in the validation phase of the study demonstrated normal semen parameters. With up to 52 hours of observation and four subsequent SA measurements/ejaculate, concentration remained stable, motility decreased by 0.39%/h, and normal morphology decreased by 0.1%/h. Measured 1-hour and calculated motility (correlation coefficients 0.87) and morphology (correlation coefficients 0.82) strongly were correlated. CONCLUSION: This novel, mail-in, Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-approved SA testing system demonstrates a strong degree of correlation between 1-hour and delayed SA testing. Given the linear motility and morphology decrease and stability of sperm concentration, this test may be used in clinical practice to evaluate semen quality for fertility evaluations. Furthermore, this approach significantly improves the ease, comfort, and efficiency of obtaining a SA, likely breaking down early barriers to accessing successfully a male fertility evaluation.

Effect of Mailed Human Papillomavirus Test Kits vs Usual Care Reminders on Cervical Cancer Screening Uptake, Precancer Detection, and Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In the United States, more than 50% of cervical cancers are diagnosed in underscreened women. Cervical cancer screening guidelines now include primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as a recommended strategy. Home-based HPV self-sampling is a viable option for increasing screening compliance and effectiveness; however, US data are needed to inform health care system implementation. Objective: To evaluate effectiveness of mailed HPV self-sampling kits vs usual care reminders for in-clinic screening to increase detection and treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) and uptake of cervical cancer screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted in Kaiser Permanente Washington, a US integrated health care delivery system. Women aged 30 to 64 years with health plan enrollment for 3 years and 5 months or more, a primary care clinician, no Papanicolaou test within 3 years and 5 months, and no hysterectomy were identified through electronic medical records and enrolled from February 25, 2014, to August 29, 2016, with follow-up through February 26, 2018. Interventions: The control group received usual care (annual patient reminders and ad hoc outreach from primary care clinics). The intervention group received usual care plus a mailed HPV self-sampling kit. Main Outcomes and Measures: Two primary outcomes were (1) CIN2+ detection within 6 months of screening and (2) treatment within 6 months of CIN2+ detection. Screening uptake within 6 months of randomization was a secondary outcome. Results: A total of 19 851 women (mean [SD] age, 50.1 [9.5] years) were included, with 9960 randomized to the intervention group and 9891 randomized to the control group. All women randomized were included in analysis. In the intervention group, 12 participants with CIN2+ were detected compared with 8 in the control group (relative risk, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.61-3.64) and 12 cases were treated vs 7 in the control group (relative risk, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.67-4.32). Screening uptake was higher in the intervention group (2618 participants [26.3%] vs 1719 participants [17.4%]; relative risk, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.43-1.60). Conclusions and Relevance: Mailing HPV kits to underscreened women increased screening uptake compared with usual care alone, with no significant differences in precancer detection or treatment. Results support the feasibility of mailing HPV kits to women who are overdue for screening as an outreach strategy to increase screening uptake in US health care systems. Efforts to increase kit uptake and follow-up of positive results are warranted to maximize detection and treatment of CIN2+. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02005510.

The Australian radiation protection and nuclear safety agency megavoltage photon thermoluminescence dosimetry postal audit service 2007-2010.

The Australian radiation protection and nuclear safety agency (ARPANSA) has continuously provided a level 1 mailed thermoluminescence dosimetry audit service for megavoltage photons since 2007. The purpose of the audit is to provide an independent verification of the reference dose output of a radiotherapy linear accelerator in a clinical environment. Photon beam quality measurements can also be made as part of the audit in addition to the output measurements. The results of all audits performed between 2007 and 2010 are presented. The average of all reference beam output measurements calculated as a clinically stated dose divided by an ARPANSA measured dose is 0.9993. The results of all beam quality measurements calculated as a clinically stated quality divided by an ARPANSA measured quality is 1.0087. Since 2011 the provision of all auditing services has been transferred from the Ionizing Radiation Standards section to the Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS) which is currently housed within ARPANSA.

The comparative effectiveness of mail order pharmacy use vs. local pharmacy use on LDL-C control in new statin users.

BACKGROUND: Mail order pharmacies are commonly used to deliver CVD risk factor medications. Previous studies have shown that mail order pharmacy use is associated with greater medication adherence; however, no studies have examined whether mail order pharmacy use is related to improved CVD risk factor outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To examine the comparative effectiveness of mail order pharmacy vs. local pharmacy use on LDL-C control in new statin users. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. PATIENTS: 100,298 adult Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) members who were new users of statins between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007. MEASUREMENTS: The main outcome measure was LDL-C control in the 3-15 month period after statin therapy was initiated. RESULTS: After adjustment for patient, clinical, and census-block characteristics, and for potential unmeasured differences between mail order and local KPNC pharmacy users with instrumental variables analysis, 85.0% of patients who used the mail order pharmacy to deliver their statin at any time achieved target LDL-C levels compared with 74.2% of patients who only used the local KPNC pharmacy to dispense the statin (p < 0.001). Greater adjusted rates of LDL-C control in mail order pharmacy users were seen across all gender and race/ethnicity subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Mail order pharmacy use was positively associated with LDL-C control in new statin users. Future research should continue to explore the relationship between mail order pharmacy use and outcomes, and address how to appropriately target mail order services to patients most likely to benefit without compromising patient choice, care, and safety.

Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a randomized comparison.

BACKGROUND: The use of Internet-based questionnaires for collection of data to evaluate patient education and other interventions has increased in recent years. Many self-report instruments have been validated using paper-and-pencil versions, but we cannot assume that the psychometric properties of an Internet-based version will be identical. OBJECTIVES: To look at similarities and differences between the Internet versions and the paper-and-pencil versions of 16 existing self-report instruments useful in evaluation of patient interventions. METHODS: Participants were recruited via the Internet and volunteered to participate (N=397), after which they were randomly assigned to fill out questionnaires online or via mailed paper-and-pencil versions. The self-report instruments measured were overall health, health distress, practice mental stress management, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability, illness intrusiveness, activity limitations, visual numeric for pain, visual numeric for shortness of breath, visual numeric for fatigue, self-efficacy for managing disease, aerobic exercise, stretching and strengthening exercise, visits to MD, hospitalizations, hospital days, and emergency room visits. Means, ranges, and confidence intervals are given for each instrument within each type of questionnaire. The results from the two questionnaires were compared using both parametric and non-parametric tests. Reliability tests were given for multi-item instruments. A separate sample (N=30) filled out identical questionnaires over the Internet within a few days and correlations were used to assess test-retest reliability. RESULTS: Out of 16 instruments, none showed significant differences when the appropriate tests were used. Construct reliability was similar within each type of questionnaire, and Internet test-retest reliability was high. Internet questionnaires required less follow-up to achieve a slightly (non-significant) higher completion rate compared to mailed questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: Among a convenience sample recruited via the Internet, results from those randomly assigned to Internet participation were at least as good as, if not better than, among those assigned mailed questionnaires, with less recruitment effort required. The instruments administered via the Internet appear to be reliable, and to be answered similarly to the way they are answered when they are administered via traditional mailed paper questionnaires.

Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a randomized comparison (2).

BACKGROUND: Low response rates among surgeons can threaten the validity of surveys. Internet technologies may reduce the time, effort, and financial resources needed to conduct surveys. OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether using Web-based technology could increase the response rates to an international survey. METHODS: We solicited opinions from the 442 surgeon-members of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association regarding the treatment of femoral neck fractures. We developed a self-administered questionnaire after conducting a literature review, focus groups, and key informant interviews, for which we used sampling to redundancy techniques. We administered an Internet version of the questionnaire on a Web site, as well as a paper version, which looked similar to the Internet version and which had identical content. Only those in our sample could access the Web site. We alternately assigned the participants to receive the survey by mail (n=221) or an email invitation to participate on the Internet (n=221). Non-respondents in the mail arm received up to three additional copies of the survey, while non-respondents in the Internet arm received up to three additional requests, including a final mailed copy. All participants in the Internet arm had an opportunity to request an emailed Portable Document Format (PDF) version. RESULTS: The Internet arm demonstrated a lower response rate (99/221, 45%) than the mail questionnaire arm (129/221, 58%) (absolute difference 13%, 95% confidence interval 4%-22%, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our Internet-based survey to surgeons resulted in a significantly lower response rate than a traditional mailed survey. Researchers should not assume that the widespread availability and potential ease of Internet-based surveys will translate into higher response rates.

Patient satisfaction or acquiescence? Comparing mail and telephone survey results.

Debates about whether to use telephone or mail to survey discharged patients are waged in many hospitals. Findings from a methodological test indicate the two methods result in significant differences in evaluations--differences that health care marketers would be wise to heed. Mail-back questionnaires generate a wider range of responses and minimize the "acquiescence bias" telephone interviews tend to elicit, especially in health care surveys.