Literature DB >> 10941997

Effect of different recruitment sources on the composition of a bipolar disorder case registry.

S H Scholle1, P B Peele, K J Kelleher, E Frank, L Jansen-McWilliams, D Kupfer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Conducting research on low-prevalence conditions presents an ongoing challenge for clinical and services researchers. Recruitment through health professionals versus other forms of self-referral may affect study group composition.
METHODS: We compared members of a voluntary case registry for bipolar disorder who were recruited through a variety of sources including health professionals, support groups, an Internet website, and mailings, brochures, and other general public relations activities. We also compared the cost of recruitment methods. We hypothesized that self-referred registry members would be of higher socioeconomic status and less likely to be in treatment compared to members recruited through health professionals.
RESULTS: Registrants referred through the Internet and patient support groups were better educated and more likely to be married than other registrants. However, Internet registrants were younger, had fewer lifetime hospitalizations and were more likely to be working. Nearly all registrants were in treatment with a psychiatrist. Local registrants were predominantly recruited through health professionals and public presentations. Registrants outside of the local region most often learned about the registry from patient support groups and the Internet. Local registrants were less likely to be using non-lithium mood stabilizers. Recruitment through public relations efforts was the most expensive method of recruitment, and the Internet website was the cheapest.
CONCLUSIONS: Diverse recruitment methods can expand the population available for clinical trials. For services research, the Internet and patient support groups are less expensive ways to identify persons served in diverse settings and health plans, but these recruitment methods yield a sample that is better educated than the remainder of the population. It remains a difficult task to identify minorities and persons not in treatment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10941997     DOI: 10.1007/s001270050231

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol        ISSN: 0933-7954            Impact factor:   4.328


  9 in total

Review 1.  Using e-technologies in clinical trials.

Authors:  Carmen Rosa; Aimee N C Campbell; Gloria M Miele; Meg Brunner; Erin L Winstanley
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2015-07-12       Impact factor: 2.226

2.  Impact of referral source and study applicants' preference for randomly assigned service on research enrollment, service engagement, and evaluative outcomes.

Authors:  Cathaleene Macias; Paul Barreira; William Hargreaves; Leonard Bickman; William Fisher; Elliot Aronson
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 18.112

3.  Cost effectiveness of recruitment methods in an obesity prevention trial for young children.

Authors:  Jodie L Robinson; Janene H Fuerch; Dana D Winiewicz; Sarah J Salvy; James N Roemmich; Leonard H Epstein
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2007-03-20       Impact factor: 4.018

4.  Differences in baseline characteristics and outcomes at 1- and 2-year follow-up of cancer survivors accrued via self-referral versus cancer registry in the FRESH START Diet and exercise trial.

Authors:  Denise Clutter Snyder; Richard Sloane; David Lobach; Isaac M Lipkus; Bercedis Peterson; William Kraus; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 5.  Barriers to participation in mental health research: are there specific gender, ethnicity and age related barriers?

Authors:  Anna Woodall; Craig Morgan; Claire Sloan; Louise Howard
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2010-12-02       Impact factor: 3.630

6.  A pilot Internet "value of health" panel: recruitment, participation and compliance.

Authors:  Ken Stein; Matthew Dyer; Tania Crabb; Ruairidh Milne; Alison Round; Julie Ratcliffe; John Brazier
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2006-11-27       Impact factor: 3.186

7.  Associations between self-referral and health behavior responses to genetic risk information.

Authors:  Kurt D Christensen; J Scott Roberts; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Sharon Lr Kardia; Colleen M McBride; Erin Linnenbringer; Robert C Green
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2015-01-31       Impact factor: 11.117

Review 8.  Digital tools for the recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a systematic map.

Authors:  Geoff K Frampton; Jonathan Shepherd; Karen Pickett; Gareth Griffiths; Jeremy C Wyatt
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2020-06-05       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Barriers encountered during enrollment in an internet-mediated randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Lorraine R Buis; Adrienne W Janney; Michael L Hess; Silas A Culver; Caroline R Richardson
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2009-08-23       Impact factor: 2.279

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.