OBJECTIVE: To study the effect of different mail- and phone-based strategies, along with patient- and research-related factors, on the time to contact with research participants. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A prospective evaluation of a 12-week standardized protocol (embedded with two randomized trials of mail- and phone-based strategies) for contacting existing research participants for recruitment into a related study. RESULTS: Of 146 participants, 87 were eligible for contact via the standardized protocol, and 63 (72%) of these were successfully contacted within 12 weeks after multiple mail- and phone-based efforts. Using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, the different mail and phone strategies showed no significant difference in the time to contact with participants. Of 34 patient- and research-related factors evaluated, only two were independently associated with time to contact among all 146 participants: (1) participants having their last visit conducted outside of the research clinic because of patient illness/condition had a longer time to contact and (2) those with a self-reported chronic fatigue history had a shorter time to contact. CONCLUSION: Few patient characteristics and research-related factors accurately predict time to contact. Repeated attempts using different strategies are important for successful and timely contact with study participants.
OBJECTIVE: To study the effect of different mail- and phone-based strategies, along with patient- and research-related factors, on the time to contact with research participants. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A prospective evaluation of a 12-week standardized protocol (embedded with two randomized trials of mail- and phone-based strategies) for contacting existing research participants for recruitment into a related study. RESULTS: Of 146 participants, 87 were eligible for contact via the standardized protocol, and 63 (72%) of these were successfully contacted within 12 weeks after multiple mail- and phone-based efforts. Using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, the different mail and phone strategies showed no significant difference in the time to contact with participants. Of 34 patient- and research-related factors evaluated, only two were independently associated with time to contact among all 146 participants: (1) participants having their last visit conducted outside of the research clinic because of patient illness/condition had a longer time to contact and (2) those with a self-reported chronic fatigue history had a shorter time to contact. CONCLUSION: Few patient characteristics and research-related factors accurately predict time to contact. Repeated attempts using different strategies are important for successful and timely contact with study participants.
Authors: Steven J Jacobsen; Douglas W Mahoney; Margaret M Redfield; Kent R Bailey; John C Burnett; Richard J Rodeheffer Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Andrew M Naidech; Jennifer L Beaumont; Michael Berman; Brandon Francis; Eric Liotta; Matthew B Maas; Shyam Prabhakaran; Jane Holl; David Cella Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Mark E Mikkelsen; Jason D Christie; Paul N Lanken; Rosette C Biester; B Taylor Thompson; Scarlett L Bellamy; A Russell Localio; Ejigayehu Demissie; Ramona O Hopkins; Derek C Angus Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2012-04-06 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Andrew M Naidech; Jennifer L Beaumont; Michael Berman; Eric Liotta; Matthew B Maas; Shyam Prabhakaran; Konrad Kording; Jane Holl; David Cella Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Victor D Dinglas; Minxuan Huang; Kristin A Sepulveda; Mariela Pinedo; Ramona O Hopkins; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Dale M Needham Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Dana S Forcey; Sandra M Walker; Lenka A Vodstrcil; Christopher K Fairley; Jade E Bilardi; Matthew Law; Jane S Hocking; Katherine A Fethers; Susan Petersen; Clare Bellhouse; Marcus Y Chen; Catriona S Bradshaw Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-11-20 Impact factor: 3.240