Literature DB >> 19254935

Recruitment methods employed in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial.

Lisa Gren1, Karen Broski, Jeffery Childs, Jill Cordes, Deborah Engelhard, Betsy Gahagan, Eduard Gamito, Vivien Gardner, Mindy Geisser, Darlene Higgins, Victoria Jenkins, Lois Lamerato, Karen Lappe, Heidi Lowery, Colleen McGuire, Mollie Miedzinski, Sheryl Ogden, Sally Tenorio, Gavin Watt, Bonita Wohlers, Pamela Marcus.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19254935      PMCID: PMC4651181          DOI: 10.1177/1740774508100974

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Trials        ISSN: 1740-7745            Impact factor:   2.486


  17 in total

1.  Using direct mail to recruit Hispanic adults into a dietary intervention: an experimental study.

Authors:  M Kiernan; K Phillips; J M Fair; A C King
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2000

Review 2.  Latino recruitment to cancer prevention/screening trials in the Southwest: setting a research agenda.

Authors:  Linda K Larkey; Sheryl L Ogden; Sally Tenorio; Teresa Ewell
Journal:  Appl Nurs Res       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 2.257

3.  A randomized trial of recruitment methods for older African American men in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

Authors:  Marvella E Ford; Suzanne L Havstad; Shawna D Davis
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.486

4.  Monitoring recruitment effectiveness and cost in a clinical trial.

Authors:  W M Bjornson-Benson; T B Stibolt; K A Manske; K J Zavela; D J Youtsey; A S Buist
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1993-04

5.  Mailing strategies and recruitment into an intervention trial of the exercise effect on breast cancer biomarkers.

Authors:  Shelley S Tworoger; Yutaka Yasui; Cornelia M Ulrich; Heather Nakamura; Kristin LaCroix; Ric Johnston; Anne McTiernan
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  The Diabetes Prevention Program: recruitment methods and results.

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

7.  Recruitment strategies in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial.

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

8.  Factors influencing the return rate in a direct mail campaign to inform minority women about prevention of cervical cancer.

Authors:  M B Dignan; R Michielutte; D D Jones-Lighty; J Bahnson
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  1994 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.792

9.  Enrollment of racial and ethnic minorities in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial.

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

10.  Direct mailing was a successful recruitment strategy for a lung-cancer screening trial.

Authors:  Lisa B Hinshaw; Sharon A Jackson; Michael Y Chen
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-03-26       Impact factor: 6.437

View more
  19 in total

1.  The design and implementation of an open-source, data-driven cohort recruitment system: the Duke Integrated Subject Cohort and Enrollment Research Network (DISCERN).

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

2.  Increasing Asian American participation in clinical trials by addressing community concerns.

Authors:  Grace X Ma; Brenda Seals; Yin Tan; Sylvia Y Wang; Richard Lee; Carolyn Y Fang
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 2.486

3.  Challenges and potential solutions to meeting accrual goals in a Phase II chemoprevention trial for prostate cancer.

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

4.  Cancer screening trials: nuts and bolts.

Authors:  Philip C Prorok; Pamela M Marcus
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 4.929

5.  Recruitment methods employed in the National Lung Screening Trial.

Authors:  Pamela M Marcus; Suzanne Lenz; Donna Sammons; William Black; Kavita Garg
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2012-05-31       Impact factor: 2.136

6.  Impact and costs of targeted recruitment of minorities to the National Lung Screening Trial.

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

7.  Community outreach and engagement strategies from the Wisconsin Study Center of the National Children's Study.

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

8.  Effort required in eligibility screening for clinical trials.

Authors:  Lynne T Penberthy; Bassam A Dahman; Valentina I Petkov; Jonathan P DeShazo
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2012-09-11       Impact factor: 3.840

9.  Non-compliance with the initial screening exam visit in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

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

10.  The National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: summary and recommendations.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.