OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on retention strategies in follow-up studies and their relevance to critical care and to comment on the Toronto experience with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) follow-up studies. DESIGN AND SETTING: Literature review and two cohort studies in a tertiary care hospital in Toronto, Canada. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: ARDS and SARS patients. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Review articles from the social sciences and medicine are summarized and our own experience with two longitudinal studies is drawn upon to elucidate strategies that can be successfully used to attenuate participant drop-out from longitudinal studies. Three key areas for retention of subjects are identified from the literature: (a) respect for patients: respect for their ideas and their time commitment to the research project; (b) tracking: collect information on many patient contacts at the initiation of the study and outline tracking procedures for subjects lost to follow-up; and (c) study personnel: interpersonal skills must be reinforced, flexible working hours mandated, and support offered. Our 5-year ARDS and 1-year SARS study retention rates were 86% and 91%, respectively, using these methods. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to reduce patient attrition are time consuming but necessary to preserve internal and external validity. When the follow-up system is working effectively, researchers can acquire the necessary data to advance knowledge in their field and patients are satisfied that they have an important role to play in the research project.
OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on retention strategies in follow-up studies and their relevance to critical care and to comment on the Toronto experience with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) follow-up studies. DESIGN AND SETTING: Literature review and two cohort studies in a tertiary care hospital in Toronto, Canada. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: ARDS and SARSpatients. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Review articles from the social sciences and medicine are summarized and our own experience with two longitudinal studies is drawn upon to elucidate strategies that can be successfully used to attenuate participant drop-out from longitudinal studies. Three key areas for retention of subjects are identified from the literature: (a) respect for patients: respect for their ideas and their time commitment to the research project; (b) tracking: collect information on many patient contacts at the initiation of the study and outline tracking procedures for subjects lost to follow-up; and (c) study personnel: interpersonal skills must be reinforced, flexible working hours mandated, and support offered. Our 5-year ARDS and 1-year SARS study retention rates were 86% and 91%, respectively, using these methods. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to reduce patient attrition are time consuming but necessary to preserve internal and external validity. When the follow-up system is working effectively, researchers can acquire the necessary data to advance knowledge in their field and patients are satisfied that they have an important role to play in the research project.
Authors: Angela M Cheung; Catherine M Tansey; George Tomlinson; Natalia Diaz-Granados; Andrea Matté; Aiala Barr; Sangeeta Mehta; C David Mazer; Cameron B Guest; Thomas E Stewart; Fatma Al-Saidi; Andrew B Cooper; Deborah Cook; Arthur S Slutsky; Margaret S Herridge Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2006-06-08 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: T C Morrison; D R Wahlgren; M F Hovell; J Zakarian; S Burkham-Kreitner; C R Hofstetter; D J Slymen; K Keating; S Russos; J A Jones Journal: Control Clin Trials Date: 1997-10
Authors: Margaret S Herridge; Angela M Cheung; Catherine M Tansey; Andrea Matte-Martyn; Natalia Diaz-Granados; Fatma Al-Saidi; Andrew B Cooper; Cameron B Guest; C David Mazer; Sangeeta Mehta; Thomas E Stewart; Aiala Barr; Deborah Cook; Arthur S Slutsky Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-02-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Catherine M Tansey; Marie Louie; Mark Loeb; Wayne L Gold; Matthew P Muller; JoAnne de Jager; Jill I Cameron; George Tomlinson; Tony Mazzulli; Sharon L Walmsley; Anita R Rachlis; Barbara D Mederski; Mike Silverman; Zev Shainhouse; Issa E Ephtimios; Monica Avendano; James Downey; Rima Styra; Deborah Yamamura; Marvin Gerson; Matthew B Stanbrook; Theodore K Marras; Elizabeth J Phillips; Noë Zamel; Susan E Richardson; Arthur S Slutsky; Margaret S Herridge Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2007-06-25
Authors: Alyssa Newberry; Paula Sherwood; Allison Hricik; Sarah Bradley; Jean Kuo; Elizabeth Crago; Leslie A Hoffman; Barbara A Given Journal: J Neurosci Nurs Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 1.230
Authors: Dale M Needham; Victor D Dinglas; Peter E Morris; James C Jackson; Catherine L Hough; Pedro A Mendez-Tellez; Amy W Wozniak; Elizabeth Colantuoni; E Wesley Ely; Todd W Rice; Ramona O Hopkins Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2013-09-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Lisa Aronson Friedman; Daniel L Young; Archana Nelliot; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Pedro A Mendez-Tellez; Dale M Needham; Victor D Dinglas Journal: Am J Crit Care Date: 2020-11-01 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Dale M Needham; Amy W Wozniak; Catherine L Hough; Peter E Morris; Victor D Dinglas; James C Jackson; Pedro A Mendez-Tellez; Carl Shanholtz; E Wesley Ely; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Ramona O Hopkins Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Deborah A DeVita; Mary C White; Xin Zhao; Zhanna Kaidarova; Edward L Murphy Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2009-03-10 Impact factor: 4.615