Tara Clinton-McHarg1, Mariko Carey, Rob Sanson-Fisher, Elizabeth Tracey. 1. Health Behaviour Research Group, Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour (PRCHB), University of Newcastle, and Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI), Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia. tara.clinton-mcharg@newcastle.edu.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recruiting large and representative samples of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors is important for gaining accurate data regarding the prevalence of unmet needs in this population. This study aimed to describe recruitment rates for AYAs recruited through a cancer registry with particular focus on: active clinician consent protocols, reasons for clinicians not providing consent and the representativeness of the final sample. METHODS: Adolescents and young adults aged 14 to 19 years inclusive and listed on the cancer registry from January 1 2002 to December 31 2007 were identified. An active clinician consent protocol was used whereby the registry sent a letter to AYAs primary treating clinicians requesting permission to contact the survivors. The registry then sent survivors who received their clinician's consent a letter seeking permission to forward their contact details to the research team. Consenting AYAs were sent a questionnaire which assessed their unmet needs. RESULTS: The overall consent rate for AYAs identified as eligible by the registry was 7.8%. Of the 411 potentially eligible survivors identified, just over half (n = 232, 56%) received their clinician's consent to be contacted. Of those 232 AYAs, 65% were unable to be contacted. Only 18 AYAs (7.8%) refused permission for their contact details to be passed on to the research team. Of the 64 young people who agreed to be contacted, 50% (n = 32) completed the questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer registries which employ active clinician consent protocols may not be appropriate for recruiting large, representative samples of AYAs diagnosed with cancer. Given that AYA cancer survivors are highly mobile, alternative methods such as treatment centre and clinic based recruitment may need to be considered.
BACKGROUND: Recruiting large and representative samples of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors is important for gaining accurate data regarding the prevalence of unmet needs in this population. This study aimed to describe recruitment rates for AYAs recruited through a cancer registry with particular focus on: active clinician consent protocols, reasons for clinicians not providing consent and the representativeness of the final sample. METHODS: Adolescents and young adults aged 14 to 19 years inclusive and listed on the cancer registry from January 1 2002 to December 31 2007 were identified. An active clinician consent protocol was used whereby the registry sent a letter to AYAs primary treating clinicians requesting permission to contact the survivors. The registry then sent survivors who received their clinician's consent a letter seeking permission to forward their contact details to the research team. Consenting AYAs were sent a questionnaire which assessed their unmet needs. RESULTS: The overall consent rate for AYAs identified as eligible by the registry was 7.8%. Of the 411 potentially eligible survivors identified, just over half (n = 232, 56%) received their clinician's consent to be contacted. Of those 232 AYAs, 65% were unable to be contacted. Only 18 AYAs (7.8%) refused permission for their contact details to be passed on to the research team. Of the 64 young people who agreed to be contacted, 50% (n = 32) completed the questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS:Cancer registries which employ active clinician consent protocols may not be appropriate for recruiting large, representative samples of AYAs diagnosed with cancer. Given that AYA cancer survivors are highly mobile, alternative methods such as treatment centre and clinic based recruitment may need to be considered.
Authors: Rob Sanson-Fisher; Mariko Carey; Lisa Mackenzie; David Hill; Sharon Campbell; Donna Turner Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-08-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Nicholas J Petrelli; Eric P Winer; Julie Brahmer; Sarita Dubey; Sonali Smith; Charles Thomas; Linda T Vahdat; Jennifer Obel; Nicholas Vogelzang; Maurie Markman; John W Sweetenham; David Pfister; Mark G Kris; Lynn M Schuchter; Raymond Sawaya; Derek Raghavan; Patricia A Ganz; Barnett Kramer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gary Rodin; Jean A Mackay; Camilla Zimmermann; Carole Mayer; Doris Howell; Mark Katz; Jonathan Sussman; Melissa Brouwers Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2009-03-04 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Morgan M Millar; Anita Y Kinney; Nicola J Camp; Lisa A Cannon-Albright; Mia Hashibe; David F Penson; Anne C Kirchhoff; Deborah W Neklason; Alicia W Gilsenan; Gretchen S Dieck; Antoinette M Stroup; Sandra L Edwards; Carrie Bateman; Marjorie E Carter; Carol Sweeney Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Tara Clinton-McHarg; Mariko Carey; Rob Sanson-Fisher; Catherine D'Este; Anthony Shakeshaft Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2012-01-30 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Jamie Bryant; Rob Sanson-Fisher; Elizabeth Fradgley; Breanne Hobden; Alison Zucca; Frans Henskens; Andrew Searles; Brad Webb; Christopher Oldmeadow Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2016-10-10 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Morgan M Millar; Joanne W Elena; Lisa Gallicchio; Sandra L Edwards; Marjorie E Carter; Kimberly A Herget; Carol Sweeney Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Aileen Grant; Jenny Ure; Donald J Nicolson; Janet Hanley; Aziz Sheikh; Brian McKinstry; Frank Sullivan Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-10-18 Impact factor: 2.655