Participant self-collected versus research coordinator-collected nasal swabs for respiratory viral surveillance following influenza-like illness
Frontiers in Public Health·
- DOI
- 10.3389/fpubh.2026.1846269
- PMID
- —
- PMCID
- —
- OpenAlex
- W4413296021
- Study type
- Journal article
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Article type
- journal-article
- Integrity
- current
Why this research matters now
Findings support self-collected nasal swabs as a feasible surveillance option that may enable earlier sampling and higher pathogen detection, particularly when collected within 7 days of symptom onset.
Structured evidence summary
Research question
Whether self-collected nasal swabs are comparable to research coordinator–collected nasal swabs for detecting respiratory viral pathogens during influenza-like illness surveillance.
Study design
Prospective comparison of paired self-collected and coordinator-collected nasal swabs within an influenza vaccine effectiveness trial, with PCR pathogen detection and concordance (Cohen's Kappa) assessed overall and by timing relative to symptom onset.
Population and setting
Adult Military Health System beneficiaries enrolled in a prospective influenza vaccine effectiveness trial who experienced influenza-like illness following vaccination and provided paired swab samples.
Main findings
Among 988 swab pairs obtained 0–7 days apart, viral pathogen detection was higher in self-collected swabs (39%) than in coordinator-collected swabs (31%), with moderate concordance (Kappa = 0.59). Self-collected swabs were taken earlier after symptom onset (median 3.0 vs 7.0 days) and more often during moderate-to-severe symptoms. Concordance was greater when both swabs were collected within 7 days of symptom onset (Kappa 0.63) compared to later pairs (Kappa 0.42).
Public-health relevance
Findings support self-collected nasal swabs as a feasible surveillance option that may enable earlier sampling and higher pathogen detection, particularly when collected within 7 days of symptom onset.
Important limitations
The summary is limited to the supplied single-article abstract and metadata; the original paper is required to assess selection of ILI episodes, representativeness, symptom-driven differences in collection timing, and whether detection differences reflect swab method versus timing, before any decision-grade interpretation.
GIDS interpretation
The article provides methodological context relevant to respiratory virus surveillance design (self-sampling and timing of collection). It does not, on its own, constitute or confirm a live surveillance signal in GIDS.
Related GIDS surveillance
Literature context does not validate, explain, or change a surveillance signal. Exact and contextual relationships are shown separately.
Evidence relationships
This article has 10 auditable classifier relationships to diseases, places, topics, and study design.