OBJECTIVE: To explore effects of various recruitment strategies on randomized clinical trial (RCT)-entry characteristics for patients with eating disorders within an everyday health-plan practice setting. METHODS:Randomly selected women, aged 25-50, in a Pacific Northwest HMO were invited to complete a self-report binge-eating screener for two treatment trials. We publicized the trials within the health plan to allow self-referral. Here, we report differences on eating-disorder status by mode and nature of recruitment (online, mail, self-referred) and assessment (comprehensive versus abbreviated) and on possible differences in enrollee characteristics between those recruited by strategy (self-referred versus study-outreach efforts). RESULTS: Few differences emerged among those recruited through outreach who responded by different modalities (internet versus mail), early-versus-late responders, and those enrolling under more comprehensive or abbreviated assessment. Self-referred were more likely to meet binge-eating thresholds and reported higher average BMI than those recruited by outreach and responding by mail; however, in most respects the groups were more similar than anticipated. Fewer than 1% of those initially contacted through outreach enrolled. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive outreach and screening is likely not feasible for broader dissemination in everyday practice settings and recruits individuals with more similar demographic and clinical characteristics to those recruited through more abbreviated and realistic screening procedures than anticipated.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To explore effects of various recruitment strategies on randomized clinical trial (RCT)-entry characteristics for patients with eating disorders within an everyday health-plan practice setting. METHODS: Randomly selected women, aged 25-50, in a Pacific Northwest HMO were invited to complete a self-report binge-eating screener for two treatment trials. We publicized the trials within the health plan to allow self-referral. Here, we report differences on eating-disorder status by mode and nature of recruitment (online, mail, self-referred) and assessment (comprehensive versus abbreviated) and on possible differences in enrollee characteristics between those recruited by strategy (self-referred versus study-outreach efforts). RESULTS: Few differences emerged among those recruited through outreach who responded by different modalities (internet versus mail), early-versus-late responders, and those enrolling under more comprehensive or abbreviated assessment. Self-referred were more likely to meet binge-eating thresholds and reported higher average BMI than those recruited by outreach and responding by mail; however, in most respects the groups were more similar than anticipated. Fewer than 1% of those initially contacted through outreach enrolled. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive outreach and screening is likely not feasible for broader dissemination in everyday practice settings and recruits individuals with more similar demographic and clinical characteristics to those recruited through more abbreviated and realistic screening procedures than anticipated.
Authors: Elizabeth A McGlynn; Steven M Asch; John Adams; Joan Keesey; Jennifer Hicks; Alison DeCristofaro; Eve A Kerr Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ellen E Fitzsimmons-Craft; Katherine N Balantekin; Dawn M Eichen; Andrea K Graham; Grace E Monterubio; Shiri Sadeh-Sharvit; Neha J Goel; Rachael E Flatt; Kristina Saffran; Anna M Karam; Marie-Laure Firebaugh; Mickey Trockel; C Barr Taylor; Denise E Wilfley Journal: Int J Eat Disord Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 4.861
Authors: Ellen E Fitzsimmons-Craft; Katherine N Balantekin; Andrea K Graham; Lauren Smolar; Dan Park; Claire Mysko; Burkhardt Funk; C Barr Taylor; Denise E Wilfley Journal: Int J Eat Disord Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 4.861
Authors: Kate Harvey; Francine Rosselli; G Terence Wilson; Lynn L Debar; Ruth H Striegel-Moore Journal: Int J Eat Disord Date: 2010-05-07 Impact factor: 4.861
Authors: John F Dickerson; Lynn DeBar; Nancy A Perrin; Frances Lynch; G Terence Wilson; Francine Rosselli; Helena C Kraemer; Ruth H Striegel-Moore Journal: Int J Eat Disord Date: 2010-10-26 Impact factor: 4.861
Authors: Lynn L DeBar; Ruth H Striegel-Moore; G Terence Wilson; Nancy Perrin; Bobbi Jo Yarborough; John Dickerson; Frances Lynch; Francine Rosselli; Helena C Kraemer Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Frances L Lynch; Ruth H Striegel-Moore; John F Dickerson; Nancy Perrin; Lynn Debar; G Terence Wilson; Helena C Kraemer Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2010-06
Authors: Craig Barr Taylor; Andrea K Graham; Ellen E Fitzsimmons-Craft; Shiri Sadeh-Sharvit; Katherine N Balantekin; Rachael E Flatt; Neha J Goel; Grace E Monterubio; Naira Topooco; Anna M Karam; Marie-Laure Firebaugh; Josef I Ruzek; Burkhardt Funk; Brian Oldenburg; Denise E Wilfley; Corinna Jacobi Journal: Int J Eat Disord Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 4.861
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