BACKGROUND: The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) is a US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate whether certain screening tests reduce mortality from prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer. To obtain adequate statistical power, it was necessary to enroll over 150,000 healthy volunteers. Recruitment began in 1993 and ended in 2001. PURPOSE: Our goal is to evaluate the success of recruitment methods employed by the 10 PLCO screening centers. We also provide estimates of recruitment yield and cost for our most successful strategy, direct mail. METHODS: Each screening center selected its own methods of recruitment. Methods changed throughout the recruitment period as needed. For this manuscript, representatives from each screening center provided information on methods utilized and their success. RESULTS:In the United States between 1993 and 2001, ten screening centers enrolled 154,934 study participants. Based on participant self-report, an estimated 95% of individuals were recruited by direct mail. Overall, enrollment yield for direct mail was 1.0%. Individual center enrollment yield ranged from 0.7% to 3.8%. Cost per enrolled participant was $9.64-35.38 for direct mail, excluding personnel costs. LIMITATIONS: Numeric data on recruitment processes were not kept consistently at individual screening centers. Numeric data in this manuscript are based on the experiences of 5 of the 10 centers. CONCLUSIONS: Direct mail, using rosters of names and addresses from profit and not-for-profit (including government) organizations, was the most successful and most often used recruitment method. Other recruitment strategies, such as community outreach and use of mass media, can be an important adjunct to direct mail in recruiting minority populations.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) is a US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate whether certain screening tests reduce mortality from prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer. To obtain adequate statistical power, it was necessary to enroll over 150,000 healthy volunteers. Recruitment began in 1993 and ended in 2001. PURPOSE: Our goal is to evaluate the success of recruitment methods employed by the 10 PLCO screening centers. We also provide estimates of recruitment yield and cost for our most successful strategy, direct mail. METHODS: Each screening center selected its own methods of recruitment. Methods changed throughout the recruitment period as needed. For this manuscript, representatives from each screening center provided information on methods utilized and their success. RESULTS: In the United States between 1993 and 2001, ten screening centers enrolled 154,934 study participants. Based on participant self-report, an estimated 95% of individuals were recruited by direct mail. Overall, enrollment yield for direct mail was 1.0%. Individual center enrollment yield ranged from 0.7% to 3.8%. Cost per enrolled participant was $9.64-35.38 for direct mail, excluding personnel costs. LIMITATIONS: Numeric data on recruitment processes were not kept consistently at individual screening centers. Numeric data in this manuscript are based on the experiences of 5 of the 10 centers. CONCLUSIONS: Direct mail, using rosters of names and addresses from profit and not-for-profit (including government) organizations, was the most successful and most often used recruitment method. Other recruitment strategies, such as community outreach and use of mass media, can be an important adjunct to direct mail in recruiting minority populations.
Authors: Richard R Rubin; Wilfred Y Fujimoto; David G Marrero; Tina Brenneman; Jeanne B Charleston; Sharon L Edelstein; Edwin B Fisher; Ruth Jordan; William C Knowler; Lynne C Lichterman; Melvin Prince; Patricia M Rowe Journal: Control Clin Trials Date: 2002-04
Authors: Connie Kingry; Arnaud Bastien; Gillian Booth; Therese S Geraci; Brenda R Kirpach; Laura C Lovato; Karen L Margolis; Yves Rosenberg; JoAnne M Sperl-Hillen; Laura Vargo; Jeff D Williamson; Jeffrey L Probstfield Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2007-04-12 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Paul F Pinsky; Marvella Ford; Eduard Gamito; Darlene Higgins; Victoria Jenkins; Lois Lamerato; Sally Tenorio; Pamela M Marcus; John K Gohagan Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: Jeffrey M Ferranti; William Gilbert; Jonathan McCall; Howard Shang; Tanya Barros; Monica M Horvath Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Nagi Kumar; Theresa Crocker; Tiffany Smith; Julio Pow-Sang; Philippe E Spiess; Kathleen Egan; Gwen Quinn; Michael Schell; Said Sebti; Aslam Kazi; Tian Chuang; Raoul Salup; Mohamed Helal; Gregory Zagaja; Edouard Trabulsi; Jerry McLarty; Tajammul Fazili; Christopher R Williams; Fred Schreiber; Joel Slaton; J Kyle Anderson Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Catherine Duda; Irene Mahon; Mei Hsiu Chen; Bradley Snyder; Richard Barr; Caroline Chiles; Robert Falk; Elliot K Fishman; David Gemmel; Jonathan G Goldin; Kathleen Brown; Reginald F Munden; Kay Vydareny; Denise R Aberle Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2011-01-17 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Susan K Riesch; Emmanuel M Ngui; Carey Ehlert; M Katie Miller; Christine A Cronk; Steven Leuthner; Mary Strehlow; Jeanne B Hewitt; Maureen S Durkin Journal: Public Health Nurs Date: 2013-01-29 Impact factor: 1.462
Authors: Pamela M Marcus; Sheryl L Ogden; Lisa H Gren; Jeffery C Childs; Shannon M Pretzel; Lois E Lamerato; Kayo Walsh; Heather M Rozjabek; Jerome Mabie; Brett Thomas; Tom Riley Journal: Prev Med Date: 2014-07-16 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Andrea M Denicoff; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Stephen S Grubbs; Suanna S Bruinooge; Robert L Comis; Peggy Devine; David M Dilts; Michelle E Duff; Jean G Ford; Steven Joffe; Lidia Schapira; Kevin P Weinfurt; Margo Michaels; Derek Raghavan; Ellen S Richmond; Robin Zon; Terrance L Albrecht; Michael A Bookman; Afshin Dowlati; Rebecca A Enos; Mona N Fouad; Marjorie Good; William J Hicks; Patrick J Loehrer; Alan P Lyss; Steven N Wolff; Debra M Wujcik; Neal J Meropol Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 3.840