Hair segment analysis is a valuable tool for the assessment of cumulative long-term steroid secretion. Preliminary findings suggest comparable cortisol concentrations in hair collected by instructed laypersons and research staff. However, it remains unclear whether hair sample quality and hair steroids other than cortisol are affected by level of experience (laypersons vs. research staff), home collection circumstances (instructions, familiarity to participant, performance confidence), and characteristics of the layperson (conscientiousness). Sixty participants (23.6 ± 3.9 years; 43 females) provided hair samples twice: first collected by laypersons (HOME) according to provided instructions (written vs. written/video-based instructions) and second by trained research staff (LAB) on the same day or the day after the HOME collection. Hair steroid concentrations (cortisol, cortisone, DHEA, progesterone) were determined using LC–MS/MS. Hair sample quality was evaluated using nine predefined criteria. Laypersons completed questionnaires for the assessment of potential factors of hair outcome measures (hair steroid concentrations, hair sample quality). Hair steroids from HOME and LAB samples were positively correlated (rs between 0.76 and 0.89) and did not significantly differ, with the exception of cortisone. The quality of hair samples was significantly higher for LAB than for HOME samples. Neither HOME collection circumstances nor layperson-related characteristics had an impact on hair outcome measures. However, a low self-reported performance confidence predicted a high absolute difference between HOME and LAB DHEA. In summary, our findings suggest higher quality of hair samples collected by trained research staff compared to instructed laypersons. However, these differences might be negligible, considering the high correlation between HOME and LAB hair steroid concentrations, with the characteristics of the layperson or collection circumstances having a minor impact on hair steroids and hair sample quality. These findings provide further support for the notion that well-instructed laypersons can be enabled to collect hair samples.

头发片段分析是评估累积长期类固醇分泌的宝贵工具。初步研究结果表明，受过指导的外行和研究人员收集的头发中的皮质醇浓度相当。然而，目前尚不清楚头发样本质量和除皮质醇以外的头发类固醇是否会受到经验水平（外行与研究人员）、家庭收集环境（说明、参与者熟悉程度、表现信心）和外行特征（尽责性）的影响。 ）。60 名参与者（23.6 ± 3.9 岁；43 名女性）两次提供头发样本：第一次由外行（家庭）根据提供的说明（书面与书面/基于视频的说明）收集，第二次由受过训练的研究人员 (LAB) 收集HOME 收集后的第二天或第二天。使用 LC-MS/MS 测定头发类固醇浓度（皮质醇、可的松、DHEA、孕酮）。使用九个预定义标准评估头发样本质量。非专业人士完成了评估头发结果测量的潜在因素（头发类固醇浓度、头发样本质量）的问卷。来自 HOME 和 LAB 样本的头发类固醇呈正相关（rs0.76 和 0.89 之间）并且没有显着差异，可的松除外。LAB 的头发样本质量明显高于 HOME 样本。家庭收集环境和外行相关特征都不会影响头发结果测量。然而，低自我报告的性能信心预示着 HOME 和 LAB DHEA 之间的绝对差异很大。总之，我们的研究结果表明，与受过指导的外行相比，训练有素的研究人员收集的头发样本质量更高。然而，考虑到 HOME 和 LAB 头发类固醇浓度之间的高度相关性，这些差异可能可以忽略不计，外行的特征或收集环境对头发类固醇和头发样本质量的影响很小。