Shannon Gwin Mitchell1, Robert P Schwartz1, Anika A H Alvanzo2, Monique S Weisman3, Tiffany L Kyle4, Eva M Turrigiano5, Martha L Gibson6, Livangelie Perez4, Erin A McClure7, Sara Clingerman8, Autumn Froias9, Danielle R Shandera10, Robrina Walker11, Dean L Babcock6, Genie L Bailey9, Gloria M Miele12, Lynn E Kunkel13, Michael Norton14, Maxine L Stitzer15. 1. a Friends Research Institute, Inc. , Baltimore , Maryland , USA. 2. b Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine , Baltimore , Maryland , USA. 3. c The Alcoholic Rehabilitation Center of Hawaii , Kaneohe , Hawaii , USA. 4. d The Center for Drug Free Living , Orlando , Florida , USA. 5. e New York Psychiatric Institute , New York , New York , USA. 6. f Eskenazi Health, Midtown Community Mental Health Center , Indianapolis , Indiana , USA. 7. g Medical University of South Carolina , Charleston , South Carolina , USA. 8. h Department of Epidemiology , University of Miami , Orlando , Florida , USA. 9. i Stanley Street Treatment and Resources , Fall River , Massachusetts , USA. 10. j Evergreen Manor , Everett , Washington , USA. 11. k University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center , Dallas , Texas , USA. 12. l Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons , New York , New York , USA. 13. m Oregon Health & Science University , Eugene , Oregon , USA. 14. n Midwestern Connecticut Council on Alcoholism , Danbury , Connecticut , USA. 15. o Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center , Baltimore , Maryland , USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The growing use of newer communication and Internet technologies, even among low-income and transient populations, require research staff to update their outreach strategies to ensure high follow-up and participant retention rates. This paper presents the views of research assistants on the use of cell phones and the Internet to track participants in a multisite randomized trial of substance use disorder treatment. METHODS: Preinterview questionnaires exploring tracking and other study-related activities were collected from 21 research staff across the 10 participating US sites. Data were then used to construct a semistructured interview guide that, in turn, was used to interview 12 of the same staff members. The questionnaires and interview data were entered in Atlas.ti and analyzed for emergent themes related to the use of technology for participant-tracking purposes. RESULTS: Study staff reported that most participants had cell phones, despite having unstable physical addresses and landlines. The incoming call feature of most cell phones was useful for participants and research staff alike, and texting proved to have additional benefits. However, reliance on participants' cell phones also proved problematic. Even homeless participants were found to have access to the Internet through public libraries and could respond to study staff e-mails. Some study sites opened generic social media accounts, through which study staff sent private messages to participants. However, the institutional review board (IRB) approval process for tracking participants using social media at some sites was prohibitively lengthy. Internet searches through Google, national paid databases, obituaries, and judiciary Web sites were also helpful tools. CONCLUSIONS: Research staff perceive that cell phones, Internet searches, and social networking sites were effective tools to achieve high follow-up rates in drug abuse research. Studies should incorporate cell phone, texting, and social network Web site information on locator forms; obtain IRB approval for contacting participants using social networking Web sites; and include Web searches, texting, and the use of social media in staff training as standard operating procedures.
BACKGROUND: The growing use of newer communication and Internet technologies, even among low-income and transient populations, require research staff to update their outreach strategies to ensure high follow-up and participant retention rates. This paper presents the views of research assistants on the use of cell phones and the Internet to track participants in a multisite randomized trial of substance use disorder treatment. METHODS: Preinterview questionnaires exploring tracking and other study-related activities were collected from 21 research staff across the 10 participating US sites. Data were then used to construct a semistructured interview guide that, in turn, was used to interview 12 of the same staff members. The questionnaires and interview data were entered in Atlas.ti and analyzed for emergent themes related to the use of technology for participant-tracking purposes. RESULTS: Study staff reported that most participants had cell phones, despite having unstable physical addresses and landlines. The incoming call feature of most cell phones was useful for participants and research staff alike, and texting proved to have additional benefits. However, reliance on participants' cell phones also proved problematic. Even homeless participants were found to have access to the Internet through public libraries and could respond to study staff e-mails. Some study sites opened generic social media accounts, through which study staff sent private messages to participants. However, the institutional review board (IRB) approval process for tracking participants using social media at some sites was prohibitively lengthy. Internet searches through Google, national paid databases, obituaries, and judiciary Web sites were also helpful tools. CONCLUSIONS: Research staff perceive that cell phones, Internet searches, and social networking sites were effective tools to achieve high follow-up rates in drug abuse research. Studies should incorporate cell phone, texting, and social network Web site information on locator forms; obtain IRB approval for contacting participants using social networking Web sites; and include Web searches, texting, and the use of social media in staff training as standard operating procedures.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clinical trials; participant tracking; social media; technology; texting
Authors: Lisa M Nicholson; Patricia M Schwirian; Elizabeth G Klein; Theresa Skybo; Lisa Murray-Johnson; Ihuoma Eneli; Bethany Boettner; Gina M French; Judith A Groner Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2011-01-27 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: John Schneider; Jennifer A Makelarski; Martha Van Haitsma; Rebecca B Lipton; Emily Abramsohn; Diane S Lauderdale; Stacy Tessler Lindau Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Elie A Akl; Matthias Briel; John J You; Francois Lamontagne; Azim Gangji; Tali Cukierman-Yaffe; Mohamad Alshurafa; Xin Sun; Kara A Nerenberg; Bradley C Johnston; Claudio Vera; Edward J Mills; Dirk Bassler; Arturo Salazar; Neera Bhatnagar; Jason W Busse; Zara Khalid; Sd Walter; Deborah J Cook; Holger J Schünemann; Douglas G Altman; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: Trials Date: 2009-06-11 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Parya Saberi; Carol Dawson Rose; Angie R Wootton; Kristin Ming; Dominique Legnitto; Melanie Jeske; Lance M Pollack; Mallory O Johnson; Valerie A Gruber; Torsten B Neilands Journal: AIDS Care Date: 2019-05-28
Authors: Ann-Margaret Dunn Navarra; Marya Viorst Gwadz; Robin Whittemore; Suzanne R Bakken; Charles M Cleland; Winslow Burleson; Susan Kaplan Jacobs; Gail D'Eramo Melkus Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2017-11
Authors: Lindsay Yoder; Andrea Mladenovic; Francis Pike; Raj Vuppalanchi; Haleigh Hanson; Laura Corbito; Archita P Desai; Naga Chalasani; Eric S Orman Journal: Am J Med Date: 2021-10-14 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Alison M El Ayadi; Hadija Nalubwama; Justus K Barageine; Suellen Miller; Susan Obore; Othman Kakaire; Abner Korn; Felicia Lester; Nadia G Diamond-Smith; Haruna Mwanje; Josaphat Byamugisha Journal: Health Care Women Int Date: 2020-10-08
Authors: Caroline M Barry; Aditi Sabhlok; Victoria C Saba; Alesha D Majors; Julia C Schechter; Erica L Levine; Martin Streicher; Gary G Bennett; Scott H Kollins; Bernard F Fuemmeler Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill Date: 2019-04-02