| Literature DB >> 21978409 |
Anne Douglas1, Raj S Bhopal, Ruby Bhopal, John F Forbes, Jason M R Gill, Julia Lawton, John McKnight, Gordon Murray, Naveed Sattar, Anu Sharma, Jaakko Tuomilehto, Sunita Wallia, Sarah H Wild, Aziz Sheikh.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the growing emphasis on the inclusion of ethnic minority patients in research, there is little published on the recruitment of these populations especially to randomised, community based, lifestyle intervention trials in the UK.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21978409 PMCID: PMC3201899 DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-220
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Trials ISSN: 1745-6215 Impact factor: 2.279
Eligibility and outline of methods for PODOSA
| Eligibility | Exclusion criteria | Methods |
|---|---|---|
| Pakistani/Indian origin | Current steroid medication | Participants are screened by an oral glucose tolerance test to identify those with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and/or impaired fasting glycaemia (IFG) |
| Living in Edinburgh or Glasgow areas | Pregnancy | Recruits with IGT/IFG plus any family volunteers are randomised into two groups, one group having 15 dietitian contacts, the other 4 contacts, over 3 years |
| Age ≥ 35 years | Expectation of emigration, or a medical condition indicating adherence to the study intervention would be unlikely | Dietitians visit the participating families in their homes, to provide advice and motivational support in relation to losing weight and increasing physical activity |
| Waist ≥ 90 cm (35in) for men and ≥ 80 cm (31in) for women | ||
Recruitment strategies to identify participants for screening stage of PODOSA
| Source | *No. of referrals/responses (% of total) | Initial target (%) for screening participants by source | +% of total actually screened (estimated) | Judgement on success of strategy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (a) Direct referrals from health care professionals | 55 (3) | 25 | 1 | Largely unsuccessful |
| 1 (b) Written invitations via GPs to potential participants | 265 (13) | 25 | 11 | Low (5.2%) response rate to letters was resource intensive |
| 1 (c) Written invitation via diabetes register to diabetes patients (to target their relatives) | 16 | 0 | Unsuccessful | |
| 1 (d) Search of practice lists for IGT/IFG | 4 | 0 | Unsuccessful | |
| 2 (a) Via research team contacts, self referrals and 'snowball' effect | > 630 (30) | 47 | Successful particularly in Glasgow, at minimal cost | |
| 2 (b) Community organisations and recruiters, assisting with recruitment for small payment | 618 (29) | (a), (b) and (c) | 26 | Initially unsuccessful when relying on goodwill, moderately successful when payment offered |
| 2 (c) Research team recruitment via visits/talks | 480 (23) | 14 | Moderately successful but labour intensive | |
| 3 (a) Written articles in the press, radio interviews, leaflet and poster distribution, website and e-mail distribution lists | Exact number not | Mainly to raise awareness with the expectation of some | 0 | Not successful in directly enrolling participants |
| 3 (b) Ethnic marketing and consultancy company | 25 (1) | 1 | Limited success achieved by fieldwork, not mass marketing | |
* total number of potentially suitable participants referred to research team or responded to invitation letters for the screening stage
+ 1319 of 2089 referrals were eligible, available and willing to attend a screening visit to have blood glucose measured, percent of total screened is given
Figure 1Recruitment flow chart.