AIMS: To describe the retention of rural women in the Rural Breast Cancer Survivors (RBCS) Intervention. BACKGROUND: Few studies describe strategies and procedures for retention of participants enrolled in cancer research. Fewer studies focus on underserved rural cancer survivors. METHODS: A descriptive design was used. A conceptual model of retention based on three factors: researcher, participant, and context with primary, secondary, and tertiary strategies was used to unify the data. RESULTS: 432 women enrolled in the RBCS study, of which 332 (77%) were retained and completed the 12 month study. Favorable retention strategies included: run-in period, persistent attempts to re-contact hard to reach, recruitment and enrollment tracking database, and a trusting and supportive relationship with the research nurse. CONCLUSION: A conceptual model of retention with differential strategies can maintain participant retention in a longitudinal research study.
AIMS: To describe the retention of rural women in the Rural Breast Cancer Survivors (RBCS) Intervention. BACKGROUND: Few studies describe strategies and procedures for retention of participants enrolled in cancer research. Fewer studies focus on underserved rural cancer survivors. METHODS: A descriptive design was used. A conceptual model of retention based on three factors: researcher, participant, and context with primary, secondary, and tertiary strategies was used to unify the data. RESULTS: 432 women enrolled in the RBCS study, of which 332 (77%) were retained and completed the 12 month study. Favorable retention strategies included: run-in period, persistent attempts to re-contact hard to reach, recruitment and enrollment tracking database, and a trusting and supportive relationship with the research nurse. CONCLUSION: A conceptual model of retention with differential strategies can maintain participant retention in a longitudinal research study.
Authors: Michelle Ulmer; Donald Robinaugh; Jennifer P Friedberg; Stuart R Lipsitz; Sundar Natarajan Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Karyn L Angell; Mary Anne Kreshka; Rebecca McCoy; Patricia Donnelly; Julie M Turner-Cobb; Kathy Graddy; Helena C Kraemer; Cheryl Koopman Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Karen A Robinson; Cheryl R Dennison; Dawn M Wayman; Peter J Pronovost; Dale M Needham Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2007-05-10 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Dori Pekmezi; Kevin Fontaine; Laura Q Rogers; Maria Pisu; Michelle Y Martin; Yu-Mei Schoenberger-Godwin; Robert A Oster; Kelly Kenzik; Nataliya V Ivankova; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-04-29 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Paul Teedon; Karen S Galea; Laura MacCalman; Kate Jones; John Cocker; John W Cherrie; Martie van Tongeren Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 3.240