ArticleHIV/AIDS (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Determining the Feasibility of a Mail-In Saliva Sample Protocol for Persons Living with HIV in Two Urban Northeast United States Clinics.
Article in HIV/AIDS (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Mail-in saliva samples are a participant-centered means of monitoring patients' oral and overall health that may help to reduce unnecessary medical trips and more efficiently use provider time. The use and acceptability of mail-in saliva samples have been studied in high-risk populations; however, it has not been studied in cohorts of people living with HIV (PLWH). Objective: To investigate the feasibility of PLWHs' willingness to provide mail-in saliva samples, 900 saliva collection kits were mailed to a randomized sample of PLWH across two urban and diverse clinics in the Northeast United States in 2019-2020. Results: 73/900 (8%) packages were returned to study personnel, with 100% (73/73) containing saliva deemed usable for analysis. 55/900 (6%) of packages were returned to the study team undeliverable. Further information may be gained from investigating the influence of personalized test results, health literacy, the requirement of the oral health survey, and study compensation that may affect an individual's motivation to participate in the study. Conclusion: While findings suggest limited feasibility of mail-in saliva collection without personalized test results in a cohort of PLWH in terms of response rate, all returned saliva samples were usable for analysis suggesting that addressing potential barriers may improve response rates and the feasibility of using mail-in salivary diagnostics to monitor disease progression in PLWH in future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.